White House Plans No Rescue if Court Guts Health Care Law

[n2doc]

WASHINGTON — As the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments on Wednesday on whether to invalidate a crucial part of the president’s health care law, Obama administration officials say they are doing nothing to prepare for what could be a catastrophic defeat.

Administration officials insist that any steps they could take to prepare for the potential crisis would be politically unworkable and ineffective, and that pursuing them would wrongly signal to the justices that reasonable solutions existed. The do-nothing strategy is meant to reinforce for the court what White House officials believe: that a loss in the health care case would be unavoidably disastrous for millions of people.

There are no contingency plans in place if the court invalidates the Affordable Care Act subsidies that 7.5 million people in 34 states are receiving, administration officials said. No one is strategizing with governors or insurance company executives or lawmakers. There is no public relations plan to reassure people who might suddenly have to pay more for insurance.

more
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/politics/obama-administration-says-it-has-no-plan-if-supreme-court-rules-against-health-law.html?_r=1

[Turbineguy]

1. A GOP victory

is determined by the harm that goes with it.

[TexasProgresive]

2. How do you reassure people who lose there insurance? n/t

[dixiegrrrrl]

17. How do you tell those same people they have to pay back the subsidies?

[TexasProgresive]

20. See Jackpine's post #13 below and my response.

[onethatcares]

39. more to the point

how do you tell those people that lose health insurance and have to pay back the subsidies that the very people they voted into office
are the ones that pushed to have it all taken away?

I firmly believe the disconnect will not be noted.

[Adrahil]

28. Tell the people to vote the fucking GOP work. And to support efforts to do so with time and money.

[gordianot]

3. Thanks for this post I was wondering about what plans are considered.

The Supreme Court has the capability of the bone headed conservatives destroying the Republican Party. Kudos to the Obama Administration for playing LIHOP. Republicans are incapable of governance.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. The one good thing about this is that it will land on the red states

whose Republican governors refused to join the national plan.

Unfortunately, mine is one of those states. Walker has turned away millions already in order to deny health care to anyone he can--which is to say, a lot of low-income people.

[n2doc]

5. And I guaren-damn-tee you that the repubs will blame Obama if it happens

And the brainwashed masses will bleat along.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. Orwell-World.

However, after all the noise they made about killing it and the infamous 56 votes or whatever the hell it was, that may be a bit of a hard sell.

Personally, I think they may have shot themselves in the foot with this one. With a shotgun.

[strawberries]

10. funny I was just thinking

thank God I live in a blue state.

[Historic NY]

6. The only plan would be to start over....

thats not a plan thats a defeat. Why, because he couldn't get an asprin for free from this congress.

[Autumn]

7. Interesting strategy.

Ice cold and no comfort to those who could lose their insurance. I really can't believe though that they really have no strategy other than let it crash if the sc doesn't step up.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. I think they want the Republicans to feel the consequences from the voters.

I don't know how many people will be affected by this--maybe about half of the 11 million or so receiving ACA coverage? 5 million or so? That's really a lot of people, especially when you consider that each of them has people who care about them and may vote out of a desire to avenge them.

[Autumn]

14. My hope is that these states hold the GOP accountable and send them into the wilderness

for at least 40 years, yeah a biblical reference from seeing those disgusting asses in Congress yesterday. This will hurt a lot of people.

[TexasProgresive]

19. I had that thought as well.

I was sitting next to a retired couple who were definitely not Obama fans. I did not try to counter their arguments because I want to let them talk. The discussion turned to the welding and fabricating business they formerly ran and owned. Then it turned to Medicare, "We just love Medicare!" So if people have been insured and the SC takes it away than maybe they will be pissed at what they lose.

[Jim Lane]

24. You guess it's 5 million, but other estimates of the number affected are even higher.

The OP quotes a New York Times article with an estimate of 7.5 million.

One of the amicus briefs in support of the Administration was signed by "19 deans and over 80 faculty members from schools of public health and public health programs across the nation, as well as the American Public Health Association." It stated:

Should the Court rule against the administration, an estimated 9.3 million people would lose subsidies by 2016, and over 8 million would become completely uninsured, according to expert data cited in the public health brief.

(from this article: "Eliminating Tax Subsidies in 34 States would Result in Millions of Uninsured and Thousands of Preventable Deaths, Public Health Amicus Brief Argues in King v. Burwell")

[Jackpine Radical]

25. I just tried for a rough, conservative estimate

for discussion purposes. Thanks for providing the real numbers.

[n2doc]

27. Mapped out:

?

Mapped: The 7.6 million Americans whose health insurance goes on trial today

http://qz.com/355725/mapped-the-7-6-million-people-whose-health-insurance-goes-on-trial-today/

[BlueStreak]

31. Not necessarily. Look at this map ==>

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/interactives-and-data/maps-and-data/state-exchange-map

There are various gradations of "state-run" versus "Federally run". Some states like OR, NV, NM, AR, IA, IL, MS, MI,WV,and NH might not be affected, depending on how the SCOTUS writes their ruling.

[jeff47]

18. There is nothing the executive branch could do to fix it.

If the SCOTUS decides to abandon all precedents and throw out the subsidies, then there is nothing the executive branch can do to fix it. It would be entirely up to Congress.

[Skidmore]

33. This. One of my greatest frustrations with DU is the tendency

to insist that the President can fix everything by himself and its tendency to give a pass to Congress for its assault on the people of the nation while somehow managing not to do its job. This lays at the feet of Congress right now.

[Cha]

36. Exactly.. knee jerkin' all the way. And, We know how Congress feels about this.. how many times have

they tried to Repeal it by now?

I don't want to freaking jinx it .. but Hopefully this pans out..

Obamacare Will Probably Survive Its Second Trip To The Supreme Court

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/03/04/3629647/obamacare-will-probably-survive-second-trip-supreme-court/

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Why should they? The GOP announced that they had a backup plan to allow all

states to do their own thing.

[2naSalit]

16. Makes it easier for

the dominant corporatocracy to decide that nobody needs healthcare unless they are millionaires... and the red stae lapdogs will take the cash bribes and f*ck the rest of us.

I live in a red state with a (D) governor but (R) legislature who think we are here to be slaves for their mining and extractive industry overlords.

[99Forever]

11. Good.

Make the bastards own it if they blow it up. The alternative is a death by a thousand cuts.

[drm604]

12. They are sending a message.

If the courts rule against the subsidies, and nothing can be done about it, then millions will lose insurance, and many of those will blame the GOP. They're letting the conservatives on the court know that such a ruling would hurt, not help, the GOP.

This shouldn't be necessary. The court should rule on legal principles, in which case that subsidies will be upheld. But we all know that this court isn't above partisan rulings.

[world wide wally]

15. I just love how America will hold a gun to it's head just because Republicans hate Obama.

Ask any Republican voter why they hate Obama,mandate all you'll get is an impersonation of a Fox parrot. The brainless leading the blind.

[KingCharlemagne]

21. What contingency plans could the White House possibly make, except to

rule by executive decree, thereby promulgating a constitutional crisis?

Like it or not, we now have a Congress which is majority nihilist but which retains the exclusive power to appropriate funds.

Again, what contingency plan could the WH conceivably make that would not require a Congressional appropriation?

[Jim Lane]

23. They could be drafting the bill to overturn the decision.

Nevertheless, I don't think it's a big deal for the White House to pass on doing so now. Give an adverse SCOTUS decision to a couple lawyers who are familiar with the ACA, and they could have a "fix" bill ready to go in a few hours at most.

There might be some small advantage to getting the proposal out there in the same news cycle as the decision. OTOH, if it's released the next day it would get more attention. That way it would have more impact and put more pressure on Congress.

[Nevernose]

32. Why bother?

The Republucans who are running congress have no interest in fixing anything, anywhere, health care or otherwise.

They want to enrich themselves and duck over Democrats and they don't care how many poor people they have to step on to do it.

Seriously: can you name a single Republican congressman who wants to improve the average American's life on any way, plus has a plan -- or even a series of actions -- to accomplish said goal?

[Jim Lane]

38. I'm thinking about Republicans' sense of self-preservation, not their idealism.

Seriously: can you name a single Republican congressman who wants to improve the average American's life on any way, plus has a plan -- or even a series of actions -- to accomplish said goal?

For the low bar of "improve in any way" you can find a few. For example, even the generally worthless Joe Barton has taken up Barney Frank's activism on behalf of online poker.

Overall, though, you are of course correct that the GOP would not try to accomplish so trivial a goal as helping eight million people, none of whom are billionaires.

My hope instead is that the elimination of the subsidies would be so catastrophic to so many people that some Republicans from swing districts would figure that their choice was to vote for the fix-it bill or to be unemployed in January 2017. Take a united Democratic Party plus 30 craven Republicans who want to keep their jobs and a bill could pass.

[oldandhappy]

22. Open your eyes Repubs.

You are about to be skewered. Will you really want it when you get what you want?

[BlueStreak]

26. I don't believe a word of it. There is a simple administrative solution available

And the administration must know that. It is obvious.

They are just talking tough, daring the SCOTUS to overturn this.

See the solution at http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026310258

[HereSince1628]

29. Not unusual for poor Americans, women, etc etc to be the pawns in political theater

[BlueStreak]

30. Well, this theater is for 99% of us, but I agree with you

that the least powerful usually get the worst of it, and this is no exception.

If this comes down as I expect, it will be:

1) SCOTUS sets a new low in the history of the court by killing insurance for millions based on the most arcane technicality ever.

2) Obama presents the administrative solution I described, which is damn close to a no-brainer, yet none of the brilliant Beltway "gurus" has apparently figured this out yet.

3) Some states like Ohio, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Maine will immediately sign on, with no disruptions at all.

4) The states with the most radical Republican Governors will be dicks about this will eventually sign on, but they will use their own people's health as a bargaining chip to extract other concessions out of the Obama administration. Some of those concessions won't even have anything to do with health care.

It sucks. That is why Obama isn't talking about it because there is a chance the SCOTUS will figure out that they accomplish nothing other than further tarnishing their reputation by overturning this. Obama would rather have SCOTUS do the right thing because that will pretty much end the ACA attacks for awhile. But if SCOTUS goes over a cliff, then Obama will have to do the above. That's not all bad because it makes this a big issue for 2016.

Too bad for the people of Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Indiana, and some of the other states that have allowed themselves to become captives of some of the most evil people ever.

Please note that the contracting model is already well established. What I am suggesting is not out of he ordinary in any way.
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/interactives-and-data/maps-and-data/state-exchange-map

[Johonny]

34. I believe the White House is run by better Lawyers than 5/9 of the court

I don't think they see any "trouble" with the law as written. The law is correct, the lawsuit is insane. What possible solution needs to exist to protect against stupid decisions designed out of spite? They don't know A) if the court will side against them, B) the language the court would use to overturn C) what solutions would be acceptable based on the decision. If the court sides against them you might argue based on the last ACA court decision that 4/9 judges will vote any fix unconstitutional just to spite democrats and give not a Fuck about the actual legal grounds of the law. Basically I think the administration is smart enough to fix damage done, but also smart enough to know if they lose this total BS suit then the supreme court is hopelessly broken and no fix will stand. I think Roberts is smart enough to not demonstrate that the court is hopelessly broken and will not back this case. I expect a 5/9 decision for ACA. This case is so stupid it is amazing it is in the court at all.

[BlueStreak]

35. There could be other challenges, but that would take time. This one has a simple solution

And the fact that nobody even talks about this simple solution suggests to me that there is an element of Obama's famous 3-dimensional chess at play here. I know that hasn't always worked out well, and maybe the White House is full of dumbasses or people who are just trying to enhance their careers as much as possible the last 21 months on the job. But I'd like to think they are at least smart enough to be aware of this rather obvious solution.

That will not stop the next attack, but the right-wing has really staked a whole lot on this ridiculous case. Everybody knows it is a bullshit legal argument, but they are counting on their 5 to come through as usual.

If Obama can turn the tables on this decision -- and I think he can -- the next wave of attacks really cannot materialize until 2016. By then we'll be into our 4th year under the exchanges and that will be very difficult to stop.

[Cali_Democrat]

37. The solution is simple...

Vote red at your peril.

The GOPers want to fuck you and then make you pay them.

Vote blue and shit like this won't happen.

Will Americans learn? Well....considering many folks in this country are dumber than a sack of hammers....

I doubt Americans will learn their lesson. They'll probably think it was Obama who took away their subsidies.

Dumbasses.