A project of the Galen Institute
The Washington Examiner
Obamacare supporters are mistaken if they think the Supreme Court's King v. Burwell ruling settles the issue. Even in defeat, King threatens Obamacare's survival, because it exposes Obamacare as an illegitimate law.
The Wall Street Journal
The Affordable Care Act was supposed to make insurance, well, more affordable. But now hard results are starting to emerge: premium surges that often average 10% to 20% and spikes that sometimes run as high as 50% or 60% or more from coast to coast. Welcome to the new abnormal of ObamaCare.
Over the holiday weekend, The New York Times published a lengthy piece confirming and adding to what has been increasingly clear for months: All over the nation, health plans being offered through Obamacare’s exchanges are requesting sizable rate hikes. In particular, popular plans that had attracted large customer bases by offering relatively low rates seem to be pushing for big increases next year, based on filings so far.
The Wall Street Journal
By upholding the legality of insurance subsidies on the federal exchange, the Supreme Court secured President Obama’s legacy of expanding access to health care. Now Mr. Obama must secure the other fundamental legacy of the Affordable Care Act: controlling health-care costs.
Convention claims the Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell decision is a loss for conservatives. But Democrats shouldn’t celebrate. Politically, it’s a win for the right, skirting potential harm in terms of legal precedent as well as improving positioning for 2016.
The Washington Post
Roberts’s intellectual complexity does not prevent him from expressing himself pithily, as he did with those words when dissenting in a case from Arizona. Joined by Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., Roberts’s dissent should somewhat mollify conservatives who are dismayed about his interpretive ingenuity four days earlier in writing the opinion that saved the Affordable Care Act. Furthermore, they, including this columnist, may have missed a wrinkle in Roberts’s ACA opinion that will serve conservatives’ long-term interests.
Real Clear Markets
In his 1996 State of the Union address, President Bill Clinton proclaimed, "The era of big government is over." That prediction turned out to provide more of a short-term rhetorical evasion than signal a lasting change in the direction of national policy. But after last week's Supreme Court decision in King v. Burwell, it would be more accurate to say: "The era of big lawsuits against Obamacare is over" Nevertheless, several other types of challenges to the future path and pace of implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) remain ahead. As one door closes, others open.
These may seem like the darkest of days for proponents of free-market health reform.
The Supreme Court ruled in King v. Burwell that ObamaCare’s subsidies can flow to states that don’t set up their own exchanges, and a poll out last week found supporters of the law narrowly outnumbering opponents for the first time in years.
But a closer look at those poll results offers not only hope for a revival of free-market aims but a path forward.
Healthcare lobbyists across Washington are hoping to win long-sought changes to ObamaCare now that the Supreme Court has affirmed the law is here to stay.
Last week’s ruling in King v. Burwell has unfrozen the field for dozens of healthcare groups that have been stymied in their efforts to tweak the law while it was still fighting for survival in the courts.
By our count at the Galen Institute, more than 54 significant changes have been made to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act since it was enacted in 2010 – at least 34 that the Obama administration has made unilaterally, 17 that Congress has passed and the president has signed, and three by the Supreme Court.
Our latest count has added two more changes made by the Obama administration contrary to statutory language, and one rewrite of the law’s text from the latest U.S. Supreme Court decision.