Obama Says King v. Burwell Is an ‘Easy Case’
House Republicans are gearing up to grill Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell this week over how the administration will handle any potential fallout if the Supreme Court strikes down federal subsidies for health insurance coverage in 34 states operating on the federal exchange. Burwell will testify before the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday, ahead of the high court’s ruling in the high-stakes case of King v. Burwell, expected later this month.
The plaintiffs in that case contend that the law’s language only provides for subsidies to people in states that created their own exchange. The Obama administration and authors of the law maintain that the law was intended to offer subsidies to all enrollees who are eligible based on their income regardless of which exchange they used.
Related: If Obamacare Collapses, These 9 Ideas Could Save Health Care
If the court rules against the administration, an estimated 6.5 million people could lose their subsidized health coverage. If that happens, experts say it could create a ripple effect throughout health insurance markets in federal exchange states. Nearly everyone agrees that such a ruling would be devastating for millions of Americans. However, there is little agreement over what, if anything, to do to stem such fallout if the court rules for the plaintiffs.
Asked why his administration has given little guidance to states on how to prepare for the potential loss of federal insurance subsidies, President Obama on Monday said, “there is no reason why the existing exchanges should be overturned through a court case.”
King v. Burwell “should be an easy case,” Obama said. “Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up. And since we’re going to get a ruling pretty quick, I think it’s important for us to go ahead and assume that the Supreme Court is going to do what most legal scholars who’ve looked at this would expect them to do.”
Obama added that Congress could also resolve any problems raised by a court ruling “with a one-sentence provision.”
Related: Double Digit Rate Hikes Loom for Obamacare 2016
That kind of response is unlikely to satisfy House Republicans, who are likely to again question Burwell’s previous claims that the administration does not have a “Plan B” in place if the court strikes down federal subsidies for millions of Americans.
Last week, during a Wall Street Journal breakfast, Burwell explained that the administration’s authority is limited. She added that her agency would work with states that are considering creating their own exchanges or using workarounds to avoid losing out on the federal subsidies.
“As always, we will stand ready to work with states, but in terms of administrative authority, we can’t do much,” Burwell said.
Republicans, who have long sought to repeal Obamacare, have criticized the administration for not having a contingency plan in place if the subsidies get struck down.
Trump and Schumer Will Try to Scrap the Debt Ceiling
The president and the Senate Democratic leader agreed to seek out a more permanent debt ceiling solution that would end the perpetual cycle of fiscal standoffs. “There are a lot of good reasons to do that, so certainly that’s something that will be discussed," Trump said Thursday. It might not be easy, though, as conservatives see the borrowing limit as a way to keep government spending in check. Paul Ryan said Thursday he opposes doing away with the debt ceiling.
Is a Fix for Obamacare Taking Shape?
Senators on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions heard from governors Thursday in the second of four scheduled hearings on stabilizing Obamacare. The common theme emerging from the testimony was flexibility: "Returning control to the states is prudent policy but also prudent politics," said Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican. He was joined by Democrat John Hickenlooper of Colorado, who said that states need room to innovate and learn from their mistakes. Much of what the governors said was in line with what the Senate panel is already considering, including the continuation of cost-sharing subsidies to insurance companies. (CBS News, Axios)
Senate Approves Trump's Deal with Dems. Will the House Go Along?
The Senate on Thursday voted to fund the government and increase the federal borrowing limit through December 8 as part of a deal that also included $15.25 billion in hurricane disaster relief funding and a short-term extension of the National Flood Insurance Program. The bill passed by a vote of 80-to-17, with only Republicans voting against the bill.
The package now goes back to the House, where it likely faces more strenuous resistance. The Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus with more than 155 members, on Thursday announced it opposed the deal because it does not include spending cuts. Rep. Mark Walker, the group's chairman, sent a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan listing 19 policy changes to "address the growing debt burden" or "begin draining the swamp" that could win conservative support for raising the debt ceiling. Some Democrats may also vote against the deal to signal their frustration with an agreement that they say weakened their hand in trying to protect undocumented immigrants who were brought into the country as children.
White House Backs Off Shutdown Threat…for Now
“Believe me, if we have to close down our government, we’re building that wall,” President Trump said of his planned border wall with Mexico 10 days ago. Just two days later, though, White House officials told Congress that a short-term spending bill to fund the government into December wouldn’t have to include $1.6 billion for the wall, The Washington Post reports.
Trump still wants money for the wall to be included in a December budget bill, and he could follow through on his shutdown threat at that point. For now, though, an agreement on a “continuing resolution” to keep the government running after September 30 seems likelier, allowing Congress to deal with some of the other pressing issues it faces this month.
Which Trump Agenda Items Are Companies Talking About With Wall Street?
Hamilton Place Strategies, a public affairs consulting firm, analyzed transcripts of earnings calls by publicly traded U.S. companies over the last three quarters. They found that tax reform was the policy issue companies discussed most on those calls with Wall Street analysts — but that mentions of the subject dropped by 38 percent from the fourth quarter of 2016 to the second quarter of 2017. Overall, the percentage of earnings calls mentioning government or policy issues fell from 41 percent to 16 percent. Health-care reform saw the largest increase.
Does this mean that businesses have given up on tax reform this year? Perhaps. More likely, it's simply the result of a lack of action on the tax overhaul. Hamilton Place notes that mentions of tax policy peaked in February just after the Senate Finance Committee advanced Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's nomination and have spiked after other tax-related announcements. So mentions of tax reform on earnings calls could surge again the fall.
One other note about what businesses have been discussing: Calls mentioning President Trump fell by 84 percent from January to late August.
08312017_HPS_Chart_of_the_day.PNG
