In, “Death by Typo,” 11/9/2014, “NY Times,” “Opinion Page,” Paul Krugman writes a confusing yet homey opinion piece about how the Supreme Court has “shocked” some people with its decision to hear King v. Burwell which will address the absence of any provision for federal subsidies to help individuals who enrolled in Obamacare via the Federal rather than a state exchange.
Mr. Krugman is referring to the two summertime court cases, one from the Court of Appeals in Washington, DC and one in the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, where one court concluded that subsidies for people enrolled through the Federal exchange are NOT authorized by the Act and another one saying they are IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT WAS MEANT RATHER THAN WHAT WAS DONE in the Act.
There is NO difference of opinion regarding what the Affordable Care Act says, which is that ONLY those who enroll via STATE exchanges (participating or establishing state) will be eligible for subsidies. (Details about sections 1311 and 1321 of the Act concerning IRS rule 36B are at Obamabucks for Health Insurance through Federal Exchanges: It’s not in the PPACA,” posthttp://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2014/07/obamabucks-for-health-insurance-through.html,7/22/2014.)
Krugman’s approach is to assert that the omission of words saying “ANYONE” instead of residents of an establishing or participating state is a “typo.” That’s really untrue.
It is this corruption of the law in the name of INTERPRETATION when it comes to some aspects of the law versus a strict adherence to the law’s text when it’s seen as benefiting the Democrats’ views that has resulted in the chaotic and schizophrenic leadership of Democrats leaving citizens feeling that essentially the tyranny of Democrats is that the rules are for others, not them.
Krugman asserts: “Everything else in the act makes it clear that this was not the drafters’ intention, and in any case you can ask them directly, and they’ll tell you that this was nothing but sloppy language.”
The problem for Mr. Krugman is that he is desperately trying to defend the indefensible. We’ve seen other provisions that are hostile towards citizens referred to as a glitch. Remember when in February it was reported that while the ACA limited what could be charged in terms of percentage of income to employees as health insurance premium (9.5 percent or so) no such limit applied to families leaving some unable to afford dependent coverage for their families? (See, “ACA Glitch or Goal?”, 2/8/2013, http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2013/02/aca-glitch-or-goal.html. Typo Mr. Krugman? Ah no, it remains a “glitch.”
Then there were the changes in effective dates, the change in income verification law required to receive Obamabucks, the delay of the employer mandate, and the two provisions (Medicaid and birth control already modified by the Supreme Court.) Typos again?
Certainly in terms of carrot and stick methods within the ACA designed to promote the law we saw that the law sought to punish states that did not adopt Medicaid expansion with a reduction in other Medicaid payments (stricken down by the Supreme Court.)
We see that those states that opted out of Medicaid are going to receive reduced Federal funding for Disproportionate Share Hospital Payments provided for under the section 1203, based on the assumption that the increased number of insured would reduce the need for such funding, another punishment for states that did not increase their insured through expanded Medicaid.
So, no, it’s not inconsistent with what the law says or how the law was passed to say that where states opt out of creating health exchanges the government seeks to punish them.
Mr. Krugman advises that people go to the Act’s creators to determine intent. Jeffrey Toobin tried this, it’s-not- in- the-law-but it-should-be approach as I discussed in, “Jeffrey Toobin’s Interpretation, HELP 2009,” http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2014/09/jeffrey-toobins-interpretation-help-2009.html, 9/15/2014. The HELP document of legislative intent states, “Until a state becomes either an establishing or participating state, the residents of that state will not be eligible for premium credits, an expanded Medicaid match, or small business credits, “HELP,” 2009.
This is a pretty clear expression of intent. Then there’s the news of the Obamacare law ARCHITECT, Jonathan Gruber revealing that lack of transparency and “the stupidity of the American voter,” are why Obamacare got through, (look this up anywhere, 11/2014).
Mr. Krugman whines that “…the Supreme Court may be willing to deprive millions of Americans of health care on the basis of an…obvious typo,” (New York Times, “Death by Typo,” Paul Krugman, 11/9/2014.)
Wow. This is like the whining that Californians who had never complied with Obamacare enrollment rules might “LOSE” the coverage they never should have gotten in the first place as reported in the LA TIMES in September 2014, see post, “Losing Obamacare They Never Should Have Gotten,” 9/16/2014, http://conoutofconsumer.blogspot.com/2014/09/losing-obamacare-they-never-should-have.html.
Yet in the face of this random, inconsistent and yes, sloppy implementation of this law, we still hear Democrats chant, “It’s the law of the land,” though apparently only when it comes to democrats wanting to use the law’s text when it supports their actions.
Paul Krugman wants the subsidies to be covered whether individuals enrolled via state or federal exchange because he knows that the ONLY way Obamacare is palatable for many is through the entitlement of Obamabucks that allow the continued uncontrolled rise in costs of healthcare services and health insurance to be disguised with giveaway federal dollars. He knows that without the handouts it would be a “Death spiral,” for the law.
In his latest and most bizarre gasps of blind loyalty to the idea rather than the facts of Obamacare, Krugman equates mandatory purchase of health insurance and the provision of subsidies to a small segment of working Americans (let’s not forget all the truly poor people left behind and outside the scheme) as the key to obtaining health CARE, obviously forgetting that health CARE is NOT HEALTH INSURANCE and that not any insurance will necessarily improve the opportunity to obtain care.
Mr. Krugman is part of the dangerous group who promote ideas through fear…even going as far as to imply that if the Supreme Court dares find federal exchange subsidies omitted and therefore unavailable under the PPACA that it will indicate “corruption,” New York Times, “Death by Typo,” Paul Krugman, 11/9/2014. Regardless of outcome, such opinions do nothing to educate the public or improve or clarify the law.
Having said all that, I don’t believe the law will be found to mean what it says…Next post will explain.
