Republican Governor Hopes Obamacare Lawsuit Fails In Supreme Court

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM

In a rare move, a Republican governor said the Supreme Court should uphold Obamacare against a major legal challenge that threatens to unravel the law by wiping out federal exchange subsidies in nearly three-dozen states.

Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead said that although he opposes Obamacare, a defeat for the law in court would cause "a lot of turmoil" and leave states like his "scrambling," according to the Wyoming Tribune Eagle.

"If on June 30, if that’s when the case comes down, and they say no more subsidies for federal exchanges … it is going to cause a lot of turmoil," he said at a press conference, as quoted by the paper. "Not just for the state, and for those people, but for the private sector as well."

Mead added: "We will see what the decision is, and if the Supreme Court upholds the federal government’s position, that is one thing. If they don’t, I think we will be one of many, many states that will be scrambling, trying find an answer and seeing whether Congress can provide the statutory fix that would be needed."

-snip-

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/republican-governor-madd-mead-obamacare-supreme-court

[calimary]

1. Whoa - a republi-CON who actually thinks of long-term consequences?

Especially those threatening to appear because of some very ill-advised, wrong-headed, and totally ignorant agenda-worship.

[cstanleytech]

6. MMm hes not up for re election next year by any chance is he?

[C_U_L8R]

2. Republicans care

ONLY when it personally affects them.
This is just thinly veneered rightwing greed.

[SpankMe]

4. Republicans care.

About what, I have no idea!

[stillwaiting]

10. Themselves. They care about themselves. Not too keen on any societal responsibilities.

Except as provided by a Church. And churches can't even BEGIN to provide all of the services that our society needs.

They know NOT what their wishes and desires will unleash.

[Still Sensible]

5. In other words, under Obamacare insurance companies and others

had to devote a great deal of resource into figuring out new ways to screw people and get the most profit in the new system. The ripple effect of killing the Federal subsidies would waste that effort and require a whole new scheme to fuck over people.... so as to not inconvenience big pharma, the health industry and their profits.

[Iliyah]

3. Many of their "Red" state's constituents will be harmed by the decision if the five asshole

justices decide to kill the federal subsidies , and many of their buddies at the insurance companies will lose their profits. GOP congress have no alternative and welcome that the insured lose their coverage. That's how evil they are.

[staggerleem]

13. Wait - do you REALLY believe ...

... that Rethuglicans consider the people who live in their districts to be their "constituents"? What a cute, quaint and old-fashioned idea! The only "constituency" that the congresscritters on the right side of the aisle give a damn about are their BIG DONORS - and THAT, of course, includes the insurance companies & Pharma - fine, upstanding, corporate persons that they are! Everyone else can go scratch their collective ass.

[still_one]

7. Will most of those states never expanded their Medicaid program and never signed onto the ACA, so

frankly they don't care what happens to their populace. Most of them are indebted to corporate interests

If this governor actually cared he would push to setup exchanges now in his state, but obviously this is just talk from a lazy ass who opposed the ACA from the start, would not expand Medicaid, and because of that caused a loss of revenue in his state.

In case Mead doesn't realize it the republicans have NEVER come up with an alternative plan. Their actual alternative was to leave things the way they were before the ACA, so uninsured would have to go to ERs, those with pre-existing conditions couldn't get insurance, etc.

[Jim Lane]

11. The politics of the two issues are different.

Rejecting Medicaid expansion means some people don't get benefits they otherwise could have gotten. The deprivation isn't as immediately obvious, plus those affected were low-income people who were less likely to vote Republican anyway.

By contrast, the federal subsidies have been in place for more than a year. People have gotten used to them. A decision for the King plaintiffs would mean that millions of people would lose the subsidies they've been getting. That would concentrate their minds much more than never getting a benefit in the first place. In addition, the people losing their subsidies would have higher incomes (up to four times the federal poverty level, far above the Medicaid ceiling) and so would be seen as more important by Republican politicians.

[still_one]

12. They may view the politics as different issues, but they were both part of the ACA

Regardless, the state not setting up its own exchanges whose fault is that? It would not even be an issue if they had their own exchanges setup

It will be decided by Kenndy and or Roberts

[Jim Lane]

14. The difference is in your question about "fault"

It's certainly the fault of state governments that chose not to expand Medicaid.

As to setting up their own exchanges, though, I don't see that as a fault. In hindsight, we know that the federal exchange had a rough rollout. At the time, though, because no one had thought of this argument about subsidies that was later concocted by ACA opponents, the states weren't thinking "We must set up an exchange so that our citizens get subsidies." The thinking instead was "We can set up an exchange if we want control over it, or we can let our citizens use the exchange that will be set up by the Obama administration. Either way, the exchange will function to show people the available options and entitle them to subsidies."

Some red states set up exchanges and some blue states didn't. I see it as merely an administrative choice, not a substantive policy decision like Medicaid expansion.

[lark]

8. Repugs would be afraid of this if they had any common sense at all, but they don't.

"seeing whether Congress can provide the statutory fix that would be needed." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Of course Congress can't find a statutory fix, who would have ever, even for a minute, thought differently. Repugs are all about destruction, not construction. They have voted to repeal/change/limit the ACA over 100 times. Never once in 8 years have they proposed any real alternative. Recently I saw something that purported to be their "plan", but it was actually no plan at all. Increasing the allowed amount for Medical Savings Accounts was it, nothing at all new since these have been existing for many years now and would absolutely nothing for the people who can't get coverage because they can't afford it. They see this as not a problem because they will 1 - make it so that lots of poor people can't vote, 2 - bombard TV's with lies so confuse everyone, 3 - hack the votes and steal the election. Actually there's a 4th option and it's one I think is most true - Repugs are idiots and will soundly lose the next presidential election again if they do this. They're just too stupid to realize the real life effects of what they do. They too listen to Faux too much, lol.

[global1]

9. My Guess Is That The States With Repug Governors Will Be Most Hit By This.....

As he said "we will be one of many, many states that will be scrambling".

[happyslug]

15. The problem is the states that did NOT adopt a State Exchange...

Under the ACA each state was to pass a law setting up a State Exchange, but 27 states DID not do so, but 16 did (with another six setting up a "Partnership" between the Federal and State Exchanges, thus making them "State Exchanges" under the ACA but operated by the Federal Government).

The ACA act states quite clearly that the Federal deductions and subsidies are only available if someone obtain health insurance through a STATE system. The act is SILENT when it comes to states that did NOT set up such exchanges, but the Federal Government did. Thus the argument that in those states that did NOT set up State Exchanges, the Federal subsidies and tax deductions are ILLEGAL. The Federal Government is taking the position that you have to read the ACA act as whole and once you do that it is clear that the intention was to permit ALL Americans to have access to those Subsidies and Tax Deductions NOT those US Citizens that happen to live in a State that passed a State Exchange law.

Thus you will have a situation US Citizens from Pennsylvania, Texas, Florida and the other states that did NOT set up State Exchanges would have to pay back the tax deductions they took for 2014, after taking them as they sent in their 2014 tax returns between now and April 15th, 2015. On the other hand US Citizens who live in California, New York, Kentucky, Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts and the other states that did set up State Exchanges will NOT be affected. i.e. NO additional taxes will be due.

If you are a GOP governor of a State that did NOT adopt a State Exchange, how do you tell a voter that they have to pay more taxes to the Federal Government because your state, do to pressure from the GOP, did not set up such States Exchanges? i.e. do to the inaction of the State, the citizens of your states have to pay higher FEDERAL taxes?

The GOP Governors see this as a HUGE problem, not now, but after the Supreme Court decision. Such a decision would force the IRS to send out taxes notices to those residents of States that did NOT set up a State Exchange. When people ask why they have to pay, the IRS will only have to say, because your state did NOT set up a State Exchange. i.e. it is the fault of your state government not the IRS.

If you are a GOP Governor how do you address the issue? You could blame the Democrats, but the Democrats are on record for SUPPORTING such Exchanges. The people who objected to the Exchanges are Republicans, and now voters in those states have to pay ADDITIONAL FEDERAL TAXES do to the failure of their state to pass a law setting up an Exchange.

This can blow up in the face of the GOP on the State level, for I do NOT see the GOP controlled Federal House and Senate fixing the problem (which they can do by passing a simple law extending such tax deductions to those people who obtains insurance using the Federal Exchange).

I hate to say this, I hope the court actually say the law is as it is written and those US Citizens who live in states that did NOT set up State Exchanges have to pay higher Federal Taxes. It would force the GOP to do something, either on the Federal Level or at the State level.

I also do NOT see the Supreme Court ruling against the Federal Exchanges. The GOP wing of the Supreme Court will NOT do anything that harms the Republican Party and s ruling against the Federal Exchanges would force the GOP to do things it does NOT want to do (vote to "Expand" ACA by voting to permit subsidies and tax deductions even if the insurance is obtain on a Federal Exchange). Thus I see the Court ruling that the Act, taken as a whole, permits such Federal Exchanges, thus sparing the GOP having to do an ACTUAL VOTE on the issue.


Previous thread on this issue from February 23, 2015:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141020888#post16

[IronLionZion]

16. So why are they silent in Texas and Florida

and other big states with tons of people on subsidies?

How about we force the GOP presidential contenders to weigh in on the effects on states like Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, and other big swing states? Ooh yeah, I bet some DUers oppose the subsidies more than the freepers do.

It would make team GOP look pretty shitty in states that have lots of voters benefiting from the law.

[Jassa]

17. Looking for info on subsidies in Michigan

Hello, I'm looking for information on this Supreme Court case, and specifically how it will affect people in Michigan. According to this, over 300,000 Michiganders will be affected by this if the SC rules against the administration. I am one of those 300,000 people who will no longer be able to afford insurance if this happens. I'm looking for info on what Michigan's governor and legislature (all Republicans) are planning on doing should the s#!t hit the fan this summer.

Thanks!
Jassa

[rbrnmw]

18. Welcome to Democratic Underground

[cynzke]

19. OF COURSE THEY BETTER WORRY!

Up to now, they got a free ride. The Fed exchange is there doing the work. They can join the bandwagon with the GOP in Washington. Now some zealots threw a monkeywrench into the works. And the mess is going to end up at the Governors' doorstep!