OpinionOp-Ed
Op-Ed

Get ready for an even bigger threat to Obamacare

CommentaryOpinionLaws and LegislationHealthcare Policies and LawsCourts and the JudiciaryAffordable Care Act (Obamacare)Justice System
Up next for Obamacare: Halbig vs. Burwell
If the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling is bad for Obamacare, another pending case could prove worse

Now that the Supreme Court has issued its ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, the legal fight over the Affordable Care Act will shift a few blocks away to another Washington courtroom, where a far more fundamental challenge to Obamacare is about to be decided by the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Indeed, if Hobby Lobby will create complications for Obamacare, Halbig vs. Burwell could trigger a full cardiac arrest.

The Halbig case challenges the massive federal subsidies in the form of tax credits made available to people with financial need who enroll in the program. In crafting the act, Congress created incentives for states to set up health insurance exchanges and disincentives for them to opt out. The law, for example, made the subsidies available only to those enrolled in insurance plans through exchanges "established by the state."

But despite that carrot — and to the great surprise of the administration — some 34 states opted not to establish their own exchanges, leaving it to the federal government to do so. This left the White House with a dilemma: If only those enrollees in states that created exchanges were eligible for subsidies, a huge pool of people would be unable to afford coverage, and the entire program would be in danger of collapse.

Indeed, the Halbig plaintiffs — individuals and small businesses in six states that didn't establish state exchanges — objected that, without the tax credits, they could have claimed exemption from the individual mandate penalty because they would be deemed unable to pay for the coverage. If the courts agree with them, the costs would go up in all 34 states that didn't establish state exchanges, and the resulting exemptions could lead to a mass exodus from Obamacare.

The administration attempted to solve the problem by simply declaring that even residents of states without their own exchanges were eligible for subsidies, even though the law seemed to specifically say they were not. The administration argues that although the statute's language does limit subsidies to residents of places with exchanges "established by the state," that wording actually referred to any exchange, including those established by the federal government. In January, a district court judge upheld that interpretation, allowing the subsidies to continue.

But the D.C. Circuit Court may see things quite differently, especially in light of recent Supreme Court opinions holding that the Obama administration has exceeded its authority and violated separation of powers.

In Michigan vs. Bay Mills Indian Community, for example, Justice Elena Kagan noted that "this court does not revise legislation … just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address." In Utility Air Regulatory Group vs. EPA, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stressed that "an agency has no power to tailor legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms." And a third strike came last week in National Labor Relations Board vs. Canning, when the Supreme Court unanimously found that President Obama had violated the Constitution in circumventing Congress through his use of recess appointments.

The D.C. Circuit Court is expected to rule any day now on the Halbig case, and supporters of the Affordable Care Act are growing nervous. In January, an Obamacare advocate described the Halbig case to a reporter for the Hill as "probably the most significant existential threat to the Affordable Care Act. All the other lawsuits that have been filed really don't go to the heart of the ACA, and this one would have." And in a fraught oral argument before the D.C. Circuit Court, the administration seemed to struggle to defend its interpretation.

If the ruling goes against the White House, it's hard to overstate the impact. Without subsidies, consumers in 34 states would face huge additional costs and, because of those costs, potential exemptions from the law. And voters — a substantial percentage of whom have never liked Obamacare — would be further alienated from the Democratic Party just in time for midterm elections.

Moreover, a ruling against the administration would mean that Obama has been responsible for ordering what could amount to billions of dollars to be paid from the federal Treasury without authority. And it would mean the administration has committed yet another violation of the separation of powers.

The administration's loss in the Hobby Lobby case is a bitter pill to swallow, but it is not a lethal threat to Obamacare. For critics of the law, Halbig is everything that Hobby Lobby is not. Where Hobby Lobby exempts only closely held corporations from a portion of the ACA rules, Halbig could allow an mass exodus from the program. And like all insurance programs, it only works if large numbers are insured so that the risks are widely spread. Halbig could leave Obamacare on life support — and lead to another showdown in the Supreme Court.

Jonathan Turley is a professor of law at George Washington University and has testified in Congress on the executive orders under the Affordable Care Act.

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
CommentaryOpinionLaws and LegislationHealthcare Policies and LawsCourts and the JudiciaryAffordable Care Act (Obamacare)Justice System
  • Who's minding public pensions?
    Who's minding public pensions?

    In September 2012, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a modest pension reform measure that tried to close some of the loopholes that could inflate pensions. Last week the board of the California Public Employees' Retirement System, or CalPERS, diluted that legislation by voting to allow...

  • Why have U.S. companies become such skinflints?
    Why have U.S. companies become such skinflints?

    Here's a depressing statistic: Last year, U.S. companies spent a whopping $598 billion — not to develop new technologies, open new markets or to hire new workers but to buy up their own shares. By removing shares from circulation, companies made remaining shares pricier, thus...

  • Franchise bill would send the wrong message to California businesses

    Judging from the rhetoric, you might think state Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) was proposing to radically shift the balance of power in the world of franchised restaurants, stores and hotels. Instead, SB 610, the bill Jackson guided through the Legislature, would write into law...

  • WHO's misplaced Ebola priority
    WHO's misplaced Ebola priority

    The World Health Organization is nothing if not opportunistic, impulsively jumping on every public health issue that makes the front page. And, of course, it always calls for lots more money to throw at the disease-of-the-month. The latest on  WHO's radar is the Ebola virus outbreak...

  • The wrong way to expand the Board of Supervisors
    The wrong way to expand the Board of Supervisors

    The five-member Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is far too small to represent the county's 10 million people, a point to which this page has returned repeatedly. In years past, courts have struck down the board's district lines for having been drawn to deprive Latinos of...

  • Don't let Arizona and Kansas get away with potentially discriminatory voter registration rules
    Don't let Arizona and Kansas get away with potentially discriminatory voter registration rules

    Arizona, which has become infamous for its hostility toward immigrants who are in the country illegally, lost an important case in the U.S. Supreme Court last year when the justices ruled that the state couldn't require proof of U.S. citizenship as part of the registration process for...

Comments
Loading