�鶹Ů��

Obamacare supporters have not hesitated to predict the drastic consequences that could come from King v. Burwell, the case the Supreme Court considers Wednesday. The plaintiffs in the case argue that the Affordable Care Act only allows the federal government to provide subsidies in states that run their own health care marketplaces. If the Supreme Court agrees, it would cut off subsidies in the 34 states that rely on the federal government to run their Obamacare marketplaces, or "exchanges." That would leave millions of Americans, concentrated largely in GOP-led states like Texas and Florida, without the financial support that puts the "affordable" in the Affordable Care Act. (Condon, 3/4)

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Wednesday in another case that threatens the survival of Obamacare. This one doesn't challenge the constitutionality of the law itself, it merely challenges the legality of one of the most important parts of the system — subsidies so that everyone can afford health care. If the court strikes down the subsidies for people who live in states that chose not to set up their own exchanges, and who get their health coverage from the federal marketplace — healthcare.gov — it would begin to unravel the entire Obamacare project. (Liasson, 4/3)

A decision halting the credits might unravel the Affordable Care Act, making other core provisions ineffective and potentially causing the market for individual insurance policies to collapse in much of the country. Hospitals would potentially be left with billions of dollars in unpaid bills. “This would be the greatest instance of judicial overreach in the modern history of the court,” Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, told reporters on Tuesday. The court will rule by the end of June. (Stohr, 3/4)

Billions of dollars in Obamacare tax subsidies could come to an abrupt end this summer if the Supreme Court rules against the White House in the latest challenge to the president’s health care law. (Haberkorn, 3/4)

As the Supreme Court hears arguments on Wednesday in the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act, health insurers are struggling to prepare for a decision that could unravel the marketplaces created by the law. The ruling could come in June—but insurers must make regulatory filings before then about their 2016 plans. Utah’s Arches Health Plan, for one, says it may propose an array of insurance product designs this spring. Then, depending on what the court decides, the insurer would be poised to drop some of them before they’re finalized with regulators and offered to consumers. The insurer may also come up with two different sets of rates for next year, one for each potential court outcome. (Wilde Mathews, 3/3)

King v. Burwell, a lawsuit that originated in conservative and libertarian think tanks, alleges that a stray phrase in the Affordable Care Act -- “an exchange established by the state” -- means the federal government isn’t allowed to provide subsidies to the residents of states that refused to establish health insurance exchanges under the law. Only 13 states and the District of Columbia have their own exchanges. If this bid to derail the Affordable Care Act succeeds, the subsidies would disappear -- maybe immediately, maybe a little later -- for Obamacare enrollees everywhere else. Behind the numbers, however, is a very human story. Without the subsidies, health insurance costs would spike beyond the means of low- and moderate-income recipients. As a result, close to 10 million people would lose their health coverage. Many others would face major increases in the premiums they pay for insurance. The Huffington Post interviewed six Americans at risk of the worst effects of a high court ruling against Obamacare. (Young and Stein, 3/3)

A closely watched case headed to the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday, King v. Burwell, could have major national impacts on health insurance markets and the millions who benefited from the federal reform law that kicked in last year. But it may not have much of an impact on Oregonians who benefited from the law -- in the short term, at least. (Budnick, 3/3)