Views On Health Law: Concerns Awaiting A Court Decision; ‘Sticker Shock’ Myths

Los Angeles Times: Healthcare Chaos Looms If Supreme Court Rules Against Obamacare Subsidies
By the end of this month, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to throw out a crucial piece of the 2010 healthcare law: the insurance subsidies for lower-income Americans in the 34 states that have insurance-buying marketplaces operated by the federal government. The prospect that the subsidies might be eliminated has some Obamacare critics in the GOP tingling in anticipation, but others are rightly worried about the potential for health insurance chaos and harm to their constituents. The problem for the latter is coming up with a plan that wouldn't leave people worse off than they were before Obamacare. (6/12)

Fox News: Why One Sentence Can't Fix The Health Law
Regardless of how the U.S. Supreme Court decides King v. Burwell -- a case regarding the Obama administration’s issuance of health insurance subsidies in violation of their own law -- the negative consequences for patients and taxpayers will continue absent thoughtful, patient-centered reform. The latest numbers don’t lie. Earlier this month, the administration announced proposed rate hikes of 10 percent or more for health insurance plans enrolling more than six million people in 41 states. This sizeable premium increase on top of prior hikes threatens the financial health of both American families and taxpayers generally, and is evidence that the health care law failed to hold up to the president’s key promise to lower costs. (Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, 6/12)

Los Angeles Times: Obamacare 'Sticker Shock'? Still Hasn't Happened.
The depiction of the Affordable Care Act as a driver of huge increases in health insurance rates refuses to die, even though the record thus far shows that premium rate increases have shrunk since open enrollment for individual plans began in 2014. The drumbeat is sounding again, based on early and incomplete filings by insurers. The drum majors typically are conservative news sources anxious to show that sticker shock hasn't been eliminated, just deferred. But numerous general news agencies fomented the panic as well. (Michael Hiltzik, 6/12)

Bloomberg: How Bush V. Gore Led To Obamacare
[Sen. John] Thune's tweet is devoid of logic: His argument is that Obama denies that Obamacare is bad even though terrible consequences will ensue for millions of beneficiaries if Republicans destroy Obamacare. A dishonest muddle may work for Republicans in the short term, though after five years of vowing to murder Obamacare it will take some effort to convince voters that the knife was in Obama's hand all along. But Republicans won't be able to hide their true position forever. They've never developed a viable alternative to Obamacare for the simple reason that they do not support a viable alternative. They are unwilling to do what is necessary to make health insurance accessible to the millions who can't afford it. (Francis Wilkinson, 6/12)

The Wall Street Journal: Four Obstacles In Selling The Benefits Of Medicaid Expansion To States
Last week, the White House released a report outlining the economic benefits to states of expanding Medicaid. The report continues a line of argument the Obama administration has used in encouraging states to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, the president’s health-care law. The administration faces several obstacles in attempting to sell this argument to reluctant states. (Chris Jacobs, 6/12)

The Motley Fool: How Obamacare Makes Early Retirement So Much Easier
There's been no shortage of back and forth when it comes to the successes -- and failures -- of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. I'm not here to offer my opinions on the program, just to point out that the program has a huge unintended consequence: it can make your prospects for early retirement much rosier. In its place, many early retirees find their level of "enough," and refuse to adjust their spending habits just because they get a raise or new high-paying job. (Brian Stoffel, 6/14)

The Philadelphia Inquirer: Pennsylvania Needs Its Own Obamacare Exchange
Later this month, the Supreme Court will issue its ruling in King v. Burwell, a case that could have far-reaching effects on American health care. The Court will decide whether the Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare) allows the government to provide subsidies for purchasing insurance in the 34 states, including Pennsylvania, that rely on Healthcare.gov, the federally-facilitated marketplace. In Pennsylvania, the Wolf Administration has announced that it will move forward with a supported state-based marketplace in the event that the Supreme Court takes away tax credits from people in state like ours. This is a commonsense approach that will protect hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians, who could otherwise lose their health insurance. (Antoinette Kraus, 6/12)