US

Study: States Believed Obamacare Restricts Subsidies Even Before Lawsuits

Font Size:

Several states’ decisions on whether to build their own Obamacare exchange as encouraged by the Obama administration came down to the question of whether subsidies would be available on federally-run health-care websites, according to a study from the American Action Forum.

The debate comes back to three highly-controversial lawsuits being battled out in federal courts across the country. Each lawsuit — Halbig, King, and Pruitt — has a unique situation and legal position, but each is based on the premise that the text of the Affordable Care Act gives federal premium subsidies only to customers in state-run exchanges.

Now that the government’s been doling out subsidies for ten months, courts are finally getting their say. But some states have already been operating under this assumption since they decided to build their exchange, according to AAF research that supports the lawsuits.

Idaho was one of the only Republican-controlled states to opt to build its own exchanges — and the availability of subsidies played a key role in state officials’ debate over the issue.

“There has been much talk about that idea that federal subsidies would not be available in a federal exchange,” the Idaho Health Insurance Exchange Working Group wrote in its final report before Gov. Butch Otter made the call to create a state exchange. The state also questioned whether subsidies would be available if they opted to build a partnership exchange with the federal government.

Other states took the question of federal exchange subsidies in another route: the employer mandate, which was only legally activated by the availability of premium subsidies.

“While Idaho legislators may have been goaded into establishing an Exchange by the language limiting subsidies to state-based Exchanges, other states were taking their analysis one step further,” AAF analyst Brittany La Couture argues. “Not establishing an Exchange would deprive the state of federal subsidies; if there are no subsidies, there is no way to trigger the employer mandate penalty.”

This is the basis for the third lawsuit against federal exchange subsidies, Pruitt v. Burwell. Oklahoma is suing the federal government for imposing subsidies — and the employer mandate — when it believes the ACA doesn’t allow for it. A federal district court ruled in Pruitt’s favor earlier this week, and an appeal will likely bring the case before a federal circuit court.

And in Indiana, Governor-elect Mike Pence wrote a letter to then-Gov. Mitch Daniels making an identical argument about subsidies and the employer mandate, according to AAF. Indiana ended up going with the federal exchange, although officials had originally planned to build their own.

That said, the legal brains behind this interpretation of Obamacare’s subsidies, the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and Case Western School of Law’s Jonathan Adler, traveled the country in 2012 presenting their research to state governments considering whether to build an exchange or leave it to the feds. In any case, however, some state legislators were evidently convinced.

That could have an important effect in the three ongoing cases. In the Halbig case, D.C. circuit Judge Edwards questioned how states could have missed this vital provision. Halbig attorneys pointed to elevent Texas Democratic congressmen who bought the argument in 2010 and urged for a national exchange; AAF’s research presents even more cases where states which believed subsidies were restricted.

Halbig supporters have latched onto another silver bullet, however. While state officials were likely thoroughly confused by Obamacare’s passage and technicalities and Congress blatantly admitted that it didn’t know what was in the bill it passed, one of Obamacare’s chief architects made the Halbig case himself several years before the lawsuits were filed.

Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist hired by the administration to construct the basis of the health-care law, not only admitted on video several times that subsidies go only to state exchanges, but explained that the restrictions were an attempt to convince states to get on board. The years-old video wasn’t unearthed until this summer by Volokh Conspiracy commenter Rich Weinstein. (RELATED: Obamacare Architect Argued Years Ago That States Without Exchanges Can’t Get Subsidies)

Another recording of Gruber’s comments, discovered by bloggers Morgan Richmond and John Sexton, indicate that even Obamacare’s author believed at one point that the letter of the law restricts subsidies — and that this is what the law was intended to do.

Gruber, who has signed onto legal briefs in defense of the Obama administration in this case, called his comments a “speak-o.” He now vehemently opposes the idea that subsidies should be doled out to the federal exchange.

Whatever each court decides, it’s clear that some states acted in accordance with Halbig‘s interpretation of subsidies. The Supreme Court may decide as soon as next week whether or not to take up the case itself.

Follow Sarah on Twitter

PREMIUM ARTICLE: Subscribe To Keep Reading

Sign up

By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

You're signed up!

Sign up

By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

You're signed up!
Sign up

By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

You're signed up!

Sign up

By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

You're signed up!
Sign up

By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

You're signed up!

Sign Up

By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

You're signed up!
Sign up

By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

You're signed up!
Sign up

By subscribing you agree to our Terms of Use

You're signed up!
BENEFITS READERS PASS PATRIOTS FOUNDERS
Daily and Breaking Newsletters
Daily Caller Shows
Ad Free Experience
Exclusive Articles
Custom Newsletters
Editor Daily Rundown
Behind The Scenes Coverage
Award Winning Documentaries
Patriot War Room
Patriot Live Chat
Exclusive Events
Gold Membership Card
Tucker Mug

What does Founders Club include?

Tucker Mug and Membership Card
Founders

Readers,

Instead of sucking up to the political and corporate powers that dominate America, The Daily Caller is fighting for you — our readers. We humbly ask you to consider joining us in this fight.

Now that millions of readers are rejecting the increasingly biased and even corrupt corporate media and joining us daily, there are powerful forces lined up to stop us: the old guard of the news media hopes to marginalize us; the big corporate ad agencies want to deprive us of revenue and put us out of business; senators threaten to have our reporters arrested for asking simple questions; the big tech platforms want to limit our ability to communicate with you; and the political party establishments feel threatened by our independence.

We don't complain -- we can't stand complainers -- but we do call it how we see it. We have a fight on our hands, and it's intense. We need your help to smash through the big tech, big media and big government blockade.

We're the insurgent outsiders for a reason: our deep-dive investigations hold the powerful to account. Our original videos undermine their narratives on a daily basis. Even our insistence on having fun infuriates them -- because we won’t bend the knee to political correctness.

One reason we stand apart is because we are not afraid to say we love America. We love her with every fiber of our being, and we think she's worth saving from today’s craziness.

Help us save her.

A second reason we stand out is the sheer number of honest responsible reporters we have helped train. We have trained so many solid reporters that they now hold prominent positions at publications across the political spectrum. Hear a rare reasonable voice at a place like CNN? There’s a good chance they were trained at Daily Caller. Same goes for the numerous Daily Caller alumni dominating the news coverage at outlets such as Fox News, Newsmax, Daily Wire and many others.

Simply put, America needs solid reporters fighting to tell the truth or we will never have honest elections or a fair system. We are working tirelessly to make that happen and we are making a difference.

Since 2010, The Daily Caller has grown immensely. We're in the halls of Congress. We're in the Oval Office. And we're in up to 20 million homes every single month. That's 20 million Americans like you who are impossible to ignore.

We can overcome the forces lined up against all of us. This is an important mission but we can’t do it unless you — the everyday Americans forgotten by the establishment — have our back.

Please consider becoming a Daily Caller Patriot today, and help us keep doing work that holds politicians, corporations and other leaders accountable. Help us thumb our noses at political correctness. Help us train a new generation of news reporters who will actually tell the truth. And help us remind Americans everywhere that there are millions of us who remain clear-eyed about our country's greatness.

In return for membership, Daily Caller Patriots will be able to read The Daily Caller without any of the ads that we have long used to support our mission. We know the ads drive you crazy. They drive us crazy too. But we need revenue to keep the fight going. If you join us, we will cut out the ads for you and put every Lincoln-headed cent we earn into amplifying our voice, training even more solid reporters, and giving you the ad-free experience and lightning fast website you deserve.

Patriots will also be eligible for Patriots Only content, newsletters, chats and live events with our reporters and editors. It's simple: welcome us into your lives, and we'll welcome you into ours.

We can save America together.

Become a Daily Caller Patriot today.

Signature

Neil Patel