User login
WASHINGTON – As the Supreme Court prepares to rule this summer on King v. Burwell, Republican Senators are offering plans should the court strike down subsidies to those who have bought health insurance via the federal exchange.
“I suspect that President Obama will create some kind of executive order to allow states to turn [federally run exchanges] into state exchanges, but the law says you can’t establish a state exchange past a certain date. That throws it back to Congress,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) said at a press conference.
If there isn’t a way forward already in sight, Sen. Johnson said that he thinks the House Republican leadership will do nothing and tell President Obama, “This is a problem of your own making.”
To avoid that kind of posturing – as well as to convince the Supreme Court that a pro-King ruling would not be harmful to patients – Sen. Johnson said, “We need to have a plan in place.”
His bill, S. 1016, the Preserving Freedom and Choice in Health Care Act, at press time had 31 cosponsors, more than the handful of similar bill introduced in the Senate.
“I’m trying to keep this as simple as possible so it has the greatest chance of success,” Sen. Johnson said. “Let’s maintain the status quo, let’s not throw this whole health insurance market into chaos.”
Should the Supreme Court strike down King v. Burwell, S. 1016 would continue through August 2017 subsidies for patients who currently have insurance bought through a federal exchange – temporarily codifying the status quo and the Obama administration’s interpretation of the Affordable Care Act.
The bill also would repeal both the ACA’s individual mandate to have health insurance and its employer mandate to provide health insurance, as well as the essential health benefits package, which Rep. Johnson said is the reason why the ACA makes health insurance expensive.
“A 60-year-old guy like me has to buy an insurance plan that has maternity coverage. When the government mandates that, it establishes a base price, and it’s going to be higher than if you have an insurance marketplace that doesn’t have all that mandated coverage,” he said. “The way this has all been implemented, if you don’t get the subsidies, you’re paying a lot, and you don’t particularly like Obamacare.”
Time is ticking down for a contingency plan: The Supreme Court is expected to rule the first week of June.
“This may not be the final product,” Sen. Johnson said of his bill, which has yet to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office. “There may be some tweaks and some additions to it over the next week or so, and then whatever comes out of that process is what I think leadership will get behind.”
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
WASHINGTON – As the Supreme Court prepares to rule this summer on King v. Burwell, Republican Senators are offering plans should the court strike down subsidies to those who have bought health insurance via the federal exchange.
“I suspect that President Obama will create some kind of executive order to allow states to turn [federally run exchanges] into state exchanges, but the law says you can’t establish a state exchange past a certain date. That throws it back to Congress,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) said at a press conference.
If there isn’t a way forward already in sight, Sen. Johnson said that he thinks the House Republican leadership will do nothing and tell President Obama, “This is a problem of your own making.”
To avoid that kind of posturing – as well as to convince the Supreme Court that a pro-King ruling would not be harmful to patients – Sen. Johnson said, “We need to have a plan in place.”
His bill, S. 1016, the Preserving Freedom and Choice in Health Care Act, at press time had 31 cosponsors, more than the handful of similar bill introduced in the Senate.
“I’m trying to keep this as simple as possible so it has the greatest chance of success,” Sen. Johnson said. “Let’s maintain the status quo, let’s not throw this whole health insurance market into chaos.”
Should the Supreme Court strike down King v. Burwell, S. 1016 would continue through August 2017 subsidies for patients who currently have insurance bought through a federal exchange – temporarily codifying the status quo and the Obama administration’s interpretation of the Affordable Care Act.
The bill also would repeal both the ACA’s individual mandate to have health insurance and its employer mandate to provide health insurance, as well as the essential health benefits package, which Rep. Johnson said is the reason why the ACA makes health insurance expensive.
“A 60-year-old guy like me has to buy an insurance plan that has maternity coverage. When the government mandates that, it establishes a base price, and it’s going to be higher than if you have an insurance marketplace that doesn’t have all that mandated coverage,” he said. “The way this has all been implemented, if you don’t get the subsidies, you’re paying a lot, and you don’t particularly like Obamacare.”
Time is ticking down for a contingency plan: The Supreme Court is expected to rule the first week of June.
“This may not be the final product,” Sen. Johnson said of his bill, which has yet to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office. “There may be some tweaks and some additions to it over the next week or so, and then whatever comes out of that process is what I think leadership will get behind.”
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
WASHINGTON – As the Supreme Court prepares to rule this summer on King v. Burwell, Republican Senators are offering plans should the court strike down subsidies to those who have bought health insurance via the federal exchange.
“I suspect that President Obama will create some kind of executive order to allow states to turn [federally run exchanges] into state exchanges, but the law says you can’t establish a state exchange past a certain date. That throws it back to Congress,” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) said at a press conference.
If there isn’t a way forward already in sight, Sen. Johnson said that he thinks the House Republican leadership will do nothing and tell President Obama, “This is a problem of your own making.”
To avoid that kind of posturing – as well as to convince the Supreme Court that a pro-King ruling would not be harmful to patients – Sen. Johnson said, “We need to have a plan in place.”
His bill, S. 1016, the Preserving Freedom and Choice in Health Care Act, at press time had 31 cosponsors, more than the handful of similar bill introduced in the Senate.
“I’m trying to keep this as simple as possible so it has the greatest chance of success,” Sen. Johnson said. “Let’s maintain the status quo, let’s not throw this whole health insurance market into chaos.”
Should the Supreme Court strike down King v. Burwell, S. 1016 would continue through August 2017 subsidies for patients who currently have insurance bought through a federal exchange – temporarily codifying the status quo and the Obama administration’s interpretation of the Affordable Care Act.
The bill also would repeal both the ACA’s individual mandate to have health insurance and its employer mandate to provide health insurance, as well as the essential health benefits package, which Rep. Johnson said is the reason why the ACA makes health insurance expensive.
“A 60-year-old guy like me has to buy an insurance plan that has maternity coverage. When the government mandates that, it establishes a base price, and it’s going to be higher than if you have an insurance marketplace that doesn’t have all that mandated coverage,” he said. “The way this has all been implemented, if you don’t get the subsidies, you’re paying a lot, and you don’t particularly like Obamacare.”
Time is ticking down for a contingency plan: The Supreme Court is expected to rule the first week of June.
“This may not be the final product,” Sen. Johnson said of his bill, which has yet to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office. “There may be some tweaks and some additions to it over the next week or so, and then whatever comes out of that process is what I think leadership will get behind.”
On Twitter @whitneymcknight
