March 25, 2015
by Nick Novak
Originally published by The Washington Times.
Earlier this week, the Affordable Care Act turned 5, and it has not been an easy road. Americans have been saddled with countless delays of key portions of the law, skyrocketing health care costs, complicated tax procedures, and don’t get me started on the Website.
In half a decade, one of the only successes Obamacare ever had was uniting the country against it. According to recent polls, approval for the law is as low as 37 percent. It’s no surprise that most Democrats that voted for the law stayed away from talking about the ACA on its birthday.
As the country turns away from President Obama’s signature legislation, the U.S. Supreme Court may be doing the same. Oral arguments were heard in early March in the case of King v. Burwell. This case will determine if the president’s administration overstepped its authority in providing taxpayer-funded subsidies to individuals that signed up for health insurance using the federal exchange.
A grand total of 37 states could be in jeopardy of losing the Obamacare subsidies they shouldn’t have had in the first place. A clear reading of the law shows states that didn’t setup their own exchange never should have qualified for the subsidies.
The ACA plainly states that individuals can qualify for subsidies if they purchase insurance through an exchange “established by the state.” Individuals in states like Georgia, Kansas, Maine, Utah, Wisconsin and many others could face some dramatic hikes in health care costs – estimated at 256 percent – if the Supreme Court strikes down the subsidies in states with the federal exchange.
Continue reading at WashingtonTimes.com.