Chief Justice John Roberts has a lot to think about these days.
It's been clear for months that if the Supreme Court were to declare that Obamacare subsidies going to people who got their plans on the federal exchange were illegal, those affected would be almost entirely in the red states. That means 22 Republican senators running for re-election in 2016 would have to answer for their constituents losing health insurance. Conventional wisdom says "ouch." But
The New York Times says, not so fast, because
it could work the other way if the court upholds the law.
Should the Obama administration win, relieved Democrats would crow that Obama's foremost domestic achievement had stood unscathed. But some say they'd have lost a potentially powerful cudgel for the 2016 campaigns: Being able to accuse Republicans of ending the assistance and disrupting health coverage for many.
If Democrats lose in court, "It completely reverses the issue and puts us back on offense on health care," said Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., one of his party's chief message crafters.
Let's hope that if Democrats win in court they celebrate the fact that 8 million people won't become uninsured instead of wishing they had lost so they had a potent 2016 issue. I'm talking to you, Steve Israel.
The reality is, if the court does strike down subsidies the pain will be felt by millions of people, and that will be very bad news for Republicans. Worse news for 8 million people, though. Which some Republicans recognize, or at least say they do, and so are fumbling toward some kind of plan to do something about it. Anyway, that's what Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and "other Republicans" told the NYT. They say they are "moving toward a joint House-Senate proposal to provide assistance to people losing subsidies. It is also likely to weaken some of the law's requirements, perhaps eliminating required coverage for individuals or giving states more flexibility to decide the scope of required medical coverage, Republicans say." That's a plan, if it should ever actually get enough Republican support to pass (which it won't in the House), that would be vetoed by President Obama. In fact, it's veto-bait on purpose, so Republicans could turn around and blame Obama for the whole mess.
The loss of subsidies would be universally bad, starting with the Supreme Court which would look even more politically hackish than it already does. Republicans would bear the brunt of the anger, but Democrats wouldn't be immune—people would just be pissed at "Washington." But millions of people would lose insurance, and the ripple effect in the individual insurance market would hurt millions more as premiums increase for everyone.