This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Washington • Sen. Orrin Hatch joined a couple fellow Republicans to unveil a vague plan last week that would provide transitional help for millions of Americans who could lose health care subsidies if the Supreme Court strikes down a key part of Obamacare.
Hatch, of course, is no fan of President Barack Obama's health-care initiative and has fought it before and after its passage in 2010, but is there another motivation for rolling out a possible fix right now?
The Washington Post's Greg Sargent suggests there is: To signal to the Supreme Court that it won't be tossing America's health-care system into chaos if it sides with the Affordable Care Act's detractors.
The court's conservatives were clear last week during arguments in the King v. Burwell case that they believe Congress would step in to solve any potential crisis should part of the law be jettisoned.
"Congressional Republicans have perhaps endeavored to play their own part in this little dance," Sargent wrote, noting the "remarkable display of fortuitous timing" of Hatch and other congressional Republicans' announced fixes. "They, too, want to appear eager to step in to help anyone hurt by an anti-ACA ruling."
The Supreme Court case centers on whether Congress meant for federal subsidies to go to those Americans who signed up for health care under federally run exchanges. The Affordable Care Act says that subsidies will go to those who signed up under state-created exchanges but the law's supporters say it was clear no one meant for those people stuck in states who refused to set up their own exchanges be left without subsidies.
Hatch, who attended the oral arguments, said afterward that he's convinced the administration acted unlawfully to grant subsidies to those using the federal exchanges.
"The Obamacare law clearly states that tax credits are available only to people who buy health insurance on a state-created exchange," Hatch said. "The president may not like that, but he has no authority to create a different statute through an IRS regulation."
Hatch, along with Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Barrasso of Wyoming, say their "bridge away from Obamacare" would provide temporary assistance to those affected by a loss of subsidies and give new freedom to states to create their own marketplaces free of federal mandates. That's pretty much as far as the details of their plan went.
Justice Antonin Scalia noted in his questioning Wednesday that if a court decision tosses out federal subsidies for millions of people, they wouldn't be left wanting.
"You really think Congress is just going to sit there while all of these disastrous consequences ensue?" Scalia asked.
"Well," responded the government's lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, "This Congress, your honor, I" – a statement interrupted by laughter in the court.
As Sargent points out, this Congress waited until nearly the last minute to pass a one-week extension for funding the Department of Homeland Security and, of course, let the government shut down less than two years ago over a partisan fight.
So Hatch offered a way out to the high court that its conservative justices want, but the question remains whether the Utah Republican could get through such a fix in "this Congress."
Morning email • Snack on Political Cornflakes, The Salt Lake Tribune's morning dish of political news. Join our mailing list by emailing cornflakes@sltrib.com or follow us on Twitter,@SLTribPolitics. Check back at politicalcornflakes.com for regular updates. Burr has reported for nearly a decade from Washington, D.C., for The Salt Lake Tribune. He can be reached at tburr@sltrib.com.