Quote:
Originally Posted by knowledgeiskey
Lol
So what's CATO's issue?
|
Michael Cannon and Jonathan Adler co-wrote
the most widely cited legal argument holding, in a nutshell, that because the section of the law regarding exchange subsidies doesn't specifically say that federally-run exchanges can provide subsidies, then only state exchanges can do so, and therefore if a state refuses to set up its own exchange, it effectively cancels the law in the state.*
It's an interesting, highly technical argument, which is probably not going to prevail in the end. But obviously Cannon and Cato want to publicize the argument as widely as possible, in the hope of swaying general public opinion and perhaps the federal judges (ultimately, supreme court justices) who will hear and determine the case.
If the Cannon-Adler argument does prevail, we'll end up with a two-track health insurance regimen in the United States: nearly-universal coverage achieved through public-subsidized private insurance in the progressive states, and the old Dickensian
status quo ante everywhere else.
It's not necessarily an unacceptable outcome, since it will mean in part that federal expenditure on subsidies and other Obamacare costs in the progressive states will help to claw back some of the unfair extra federal per capita expenditure in red states. Blue states will get the subsidies, red states will get emergency room care.
* Edit: I should say, those parts of the law relating to the insurances exchanges and related tax-credit subsidies; much of the law would be completely unaffected by the Cannon-Adler argument even if it succeeds before the Supreme Court.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
