Tomorrow morning, Obamacare will be in the hot seat again. The plaintiffs of King v Burwell argue that the IRS has overstepped its legal bounds by administering tax-credits to federally established exchanges. Supporters of the plaintiffs claim that the statutory text of the Affordable Care Act limits tax- credit distribution to financially eligible individual market policyholders in only states with state-established health insurance exchanges.
While there is no single person who lifted this issue off the ground, much credit is owed to Cato Institute health policy director Michael Cannon, former Reagan-administration official and lawyer Tom Christina, and Casewestern Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler.
Sarah Kliff’s feature article in Vox delves into the details as to how this lawsuit has made its way to the highest court in the land, and how not much attention was initially paid to the fact that subsidies are contingent upon state exchange participation.
“I noticed something peculiar about the tax credits. There will be no tax credits for tax payers who live in non-capitulating states,” Christina told the audience.
Looking back on that presentation, Christina says he really didn’t think much at the time about what this would mean for the health-care law.
“I think people imagine a eureka moment,” says Christina. “It was nothing like that. I was assigned to do this for my firm.”
Read the full article here.
