Will An Argument Used Against The Health Law In 2012 Now Be Used As Its Defense?
The New York Times reports how federalism themes and principles could be a key part of the high court's decision in King v. Burwell. Meanwhile, the Associated Press lists reasons why the health law is a never-ending saga. Other news outlets look at what might come next.
The New York Times:
Some Supreme Court Justices Cite 2012 Argument Against Health Care Law As Defense For It Now
In 2012, the Supreme Court declared that Congress had put “a gun to the head” of states by pressuring them to expand Medicaid, and it said that such “economic dragooning” of the states violated federalism principles embedded in the Constitution. Now, in a separate case, comments by several justices indicate that they could uphold a pillar of the Affordable Care Act — insurance subsidies for millions of lower-income people — by invoking those same principles. (Pear, 3/8)
The Associated Press:
AP Analysis: 5 Reasons Why Health Overhaul Drama Plays On
President Barack Obama's health overhaul remains an all-consuming drama for many, even though millions of people are gaining insurance coverage through a law that's now 5 years old. During oral arguments last week in the latest Supreme Court case brought by the law's opponents, Justice Elena Kagan called it a "never-ending saga." Five reasons why the "Obamacare" epic plays on. (Alonso-Zaldivar, 3/8)
The Hill:
GOP Braces For ObamaCare Win
Republicans are under pressure to prove they can avert a massive healthcare meltdown if the party wins its latest ObamaCare battle in the Supreme Court this spring. Some of that pressure is being brought to bear, at least implicitly, by the justices themselves, who appear concerned over whether Congress can create a fully baked alternative plan if the court strikes down ObamaCare subsidies for 8 million people. Skepticism has also been growing within the GOP itself. "This is just going to be ugly no matter what we do," GOP strategist Rick Wilson said. (Ferris, 3/7)
The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire:
Insurance Subsidies And GOP Alternatives To Obamacare
If the challengers win–which seems less likely now, given the tenor of oral argument at the court on Wednesday–some states may seek to quickly establish their own exchanges or to work with the administration to develop a hybrid model under which states control their exchanges but farm out some of the back-end duties to the federal government. A plaintiffs’ victory also could give new momentum to those Republicans who want to replace the Affordable Care Act with another plan (a proposal that could attract a few Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2016 in states where Obamacare continues to be unpopular). (Litan, 3/6)
