Blog | Subscribe | Free Trial | Contact Us | Cart | Donate | Planned Giving
Log In | Search
facebook
rss
twitter
  • CURRENT
    • Fall 2022 PDF
    • SUMMER 2022 ARTICLES
    • NEWSworthy: What’s Happening and What It Means to You
    • Blog
    • INSISTING ON LIFE
    • Pastoral Reflections
    • About Us
    • HLF In The News
    • LIBERTY TO DO WHAT? Hadley Arkes and Rusty Reno join George McKenna June 1, 2022 in New York
  • DINNER
    • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER 2022
    • HOST COMMITTEE Great Defender of Life Dinner 2022
    • Great Defender of Life 2022 Dinner Ticket
    • Great Defender of Life 2022 STUDENT or PREGNANCY CENTER STAFF Ticket
    • DINNER JOURNAL ADVERTISING 2022
  • ARCHIVE
    • Archive Spotlight
    • ISSUES IN HTML FORMAT
  • LEGACY
    • Planned Giving: Wills, Trusts, and Gifts of Stock
  • SHOP
    • Cart

BLOG

0 Comment

ObamaCare’s Next Act: King v. Burwell

10 Feb 2015
Connie Marshner
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

King v. Burwell? Never heard of it?  You may soon.ACA-Information-Session1

On March 4 the Supreme Court will hear the case. The question before the justices is: What did Congress really mean when it wrote the ObamaCare law?

You know, the erroneously-named “Affordable Care Act” (ACA), aka ObamaCare.  The Abortion-Is-Essential-Health-Care, Permanent-Funding-of-Planned-Parenthood-Through-Sex-Clinics-in-Schools Act, the source of the HHS Mandate-to Destroy-Religious-Freedom-by-Denying-Rights-of-Conscience Act.

Yes, that ACA. The monstrosity that has changed the political and economic face of the nation in the past six years. The law that “had to be passed so we could find out what was in it.”

Currently the pro-life movement must engage in a great deal of defensive action because ObamaCare covers abortions in most of its insurance plans. The HHS Mandate—issued under the ACA—requires pro-life employers to subsidize abortions and abortifacient drugs. The subsidies to Planned Parenthood continue to stoke the demand for abortion and finance the most bitter enemies of the pro-life cause.

The devil is in the details in this case—and the money is in the details. King v. Burwell challenges how the U.S. Treasury and the IRS have interpreted the Affordable Care Act.  ObamaCare is prohibitively expensive. Forget the dishonest memes of “If you like your health plan, you can keep it,” and “This is going to cost less than your current health insurance.”

The simple fact is that most people who now have ObamaCare could not afford it unless they were being subsidized. The text of the Act allows federal subsidies for state-run healthcare exchanges. But only 14 states have set up such exchanges.

Early on, Obamacrats at the IRS realized that in order for ObamaCare to be “affordable,” the federal government would have to subsidize it all. So, since the beginning of its implementation, the IRS has ignored that detail of the law and has allowed the federal government to subsidize healthcare purchased on federal exchanges as well.

Those subsidies run anywhere from $5,000 to $14,000 a year for a family of four whose annual income is from $30,000 to $92,000. Eventually somebody noticed that the IRS regulation does not square with the law as it is written. Hence, this lawsuit.

So the real question is: Who will be doing the subsidizing? It’s taxpayers, to be sure, but should it be state taxpayers or federal taxpayers?

The Court could decide to play Alice-in-Wonderland and declare that “The words mean what Obama wants them to mean.” In which case, the decision, when it comes, might not even merit mention on the evening news.

But if the Court decides to interpret the law the way the bill was actually written, it could be headlines for days. If the federal funding currently keeping ObamaCare afloat in 36 states were to be ruled not legal, 13 million people in 36 states might lose their subsidies . . . and their insurance. That might provoke a true crisis.

How desperate might the situation be? If more than half the country were suddenly to be rendered uninsured, it could be pretty desperate.

If that happened, those 36 state legislatures might still have the option of setting up health-care exchanges in order to keep the current stream of federal subsidies—and keep the national health insurance system functioning. Of course, some of those states already have decided not to set up exchanges. Many may be out of session by the time the Court rules, so the atmosphere could be one of near panic.

Many states still have citizen legislatures—in which the lawmakers are real people, with real jobs, who spend only part of their time running other peoples’ lives. They are not accustomed to dealing with the exorbitant pressure the White House and the enormous health-care lobby would be able to bring to bear on them.

If the Supreme Court upholds the language of the misnamed “Affordable Care Act,” and abolishes the federal subsidies, these ordinary men and women just might find themselves deciding the future of 60% of the national economy—as well as voting on regulations governing abortion clinics and waiting periods and pain-capable infant protection laws.

At the very least, King v. Burwell should teach legislators in Congress to read bills before they vote on them.

*     *     *     *     *

Connie Marshner has been a pro-life, pro-family researcher, grassroots trainer, organizer, and lobbyist; manager; writer; homeschooler; editor; campaign adviser; coalition leader; fundraiser; and political strategist. She is absolutely thrilled now to be a blogger for Human Life Review.

 

 

129 people have visited this page. 1 have visited this page today.

Social Share

  • google-share

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Comments will not be posted until approved by a moderator in an effort to prevent spam and off-topic responses.

*
*

captcha *

Get the Human Life Review

subscribe to HLR

Recent Posts

Abortion activist attempts to expose crisis pregnancy centers—and fails

17 Jan 2023

An Abortion Clinic in Your Neighborhood

09 Jan 2023

“Benedict XVI, 95, Who Defended Doctrine, Dies.”                                                         — The New York Times, January 1, 202

04 Jan 2023

CURRENT ISSUE

Anne Conlon Anne Hendershott B G Carter Brian Caulfield Christopher White Clarke Forsythe Colleen O’Hara Connie Marshner David Mills David Poecking David Quinn Diane Moriarty Dr. Donald DeMarco Edward Mechmann Edward Short Ellen Wilson Fielding Fr. Gerald E. Murray George McKenna Helen Alvaré Jane Sarah Jason Morgan Joe Bissonnette John Grondelski Kristan Hawkins Laura Echevarria Madeline Fry Schultz Maria McFadden Maffucci Mary Meehan Mary Rose Somarriba Meaghan Bond Nat Hentoff Nicholas Frankovich Patrick J. Flood Peter Pavia Rev. George G. Brooks Rev. Paul T. Stallsworth Stephen Vincent Tara Jernigan Ursula Hennessey Victor Lee Austin Vincenzina Santoro W. Ross Blackburn Wesley J. Smith William Doino Jr. William Murchison

Pages

  • Issues
  • Human Life Foundation Blog
  • About Us
  • Free Trial Issue
  • Contact Us
  • Shop
  • Planned Giving
  • TOPICS
  • GREAT DEFENDER OF LIFE DINNER

Follow Us On Twitter

Tweets by @HumanLifeReview

Find Us On Facebook

Human Life Review/Foundation

Search our Website

Contact Information

The Human Life Foundation, Inc.
The Human Life Review
271 Madison Avenue, Room 1005
New York, New York 10016
(212) 685-5210

Copyright (c) The Human Life Foundation.