ACA, Administrative State, Affordable Care Act, Chief Justice Roberts, Damon Root, Ilya Shapiro, Judicial Activism, Judicial Restraint, King vs. Burwell, Obamacare, Randy Barnett, Robert Bork, Robert Laszlewski, SCOTUS, SCOTUSblog, Tyler Cowen
I have mixed feelings about the Supreme Court’s King vs. Burwell decision upholding federal subsidies for health insurance purchased in states that did not establish their own exchanges. My biggest concerns are that the decision gives a pass to the unchecked exercise of executive fiat as well as congressional carelessness (“lassitude”, to use Justice Scalia’s term), and the smearing of the separation of legislative and judicial powers. I admit that I was eager to see the exchanges unravel under the weight of their own lousy economics. However, the economics remain lousy even with the ruling, which will become more evident as major subsidies to health insurers expire over the next 18 months. It will be interesting to watch as the process of escalating premia plays out. I’m relieved that the Obamacare opposition in Congress (primarily Republicans) is now off the hook. These legislators never coalesced around an alternative and would have received a good portion of the blame for any further disruptions in the insurance “market” had the decision gone the other way. Probably their best approach would have been to extend the subsidies to all exchanges, at least for the remainder of Obama’s term. As Tyler Cowen notes, an extension would have occurred:
“… only after a lot of political stupidity and also painful media coverage. So on net I take this to be good news, although arguably it is bad news that it is good news.“
On the merits of health care policy, given the failure to put forward a better plan, what would have been gained over the next 18 months from a ruling for the plaintiffs? Not much.
Cowen links to a Robert Laszlewski post emphasizing the fragile economic and political condition of Obamacare:
“Obamacare has only enrolled about 40% of the subsidy eligible market in two years worth of open enrollments. That level of consumer support does not make Obamacare either financially sustainable or politically sustainable. The surveys say the 40% who have enrolled like their plans. Of course they do, they are the poorest with the biggest subsidies and the lowest deductibles. The working and middle-class have most often not signed up for Obamacare because it costs too much and delivers too little.
That Obamacare is not financially sustainable is evidenced by the first wave of big 2016 rate increases by so many large market share insurers. The next wave of rate increases a year from now will also be large and will be in the middle of the 2016 election.“
The SCOTUS decision flies in the face of the roles and responsibilities assigned to the branches of government by the Constitution. The implication of the ruling is that a law means whatever the executive branch says it means, even when it says the opposite unambiguously. This goes too far in granting executive power to “reimagine” legislation, and the Left may well come to regret it as a precedent. Executive rulings in implementing laws is nothing new, but one hopes for the courts to keep a tight rein on this discretion in an era when the regulatory environment is growing increasingly complex.
A Randy Barnett post at SCOTUSblog quotes Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion:
“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.“
Improve health care markets? Not destroy them? Wait… I’m confused! But seriously, at this point in the process, Justice Roberts must be confused about actual outcomes. An objective assessment of Obamacare would include an accounting for the many individuals whose policies were cancelled against their wishes, premium escalation, and the fact that the ACA has fallen well short of expectations for reducing the number of uninsured; the law has certainly not improved markets. Barnett describes Roberts’ apparent philosophy on this point thusly:
“... the Chief Justice seems to be telling us that he is once again putting a thumb on the scale for the government here as he did in his solo opinion in NFIB. Rather than assessing the constitutionality of the law as written – or enforcing it according to its terms – the court will rewrite the law to suit the government.”
This is not merely “legislative deference”, it is legislative rescue and a rewriting of the law. And Barnett points out that the Courts should provide a check on bad legislation, not serve as enablers.
Damon Root offers an excellent clarification of Roberts’ thinking: the strand of conservative judicial philosophy calling for deference to legislative intent is often attributed to Robert Bork. This obviously conflicts with the notion that conservatives are judicial activists. I discussed judicial activism here a few months ago, including Randy Barnett’s assertion that the term seems to be invoked as a pejorative almost any time someone doesn’t like a court decision. If it means preserving the Constitution, then count me as an activist.
Ilya Shapiro sums up the “intent” of the legislation and the “deferential” position taken by the court in King vs. Burwell:
“Roberts explains his transmogrification by finding it ‘implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner,’ to deny subsidies to millions of people as part of legislation intended to expanded coverage. But it’s hardly implausible to think that legislation that still says that states ‘shall’ set up exchanges—the drafters forgot to fix this bit after lawyers pointed out that Congress can’t command states to do anything—would effectively give states an offer nobody thought they’d refuse. It was supposed to be a win-win: states rather than the federal government would run health care exchanges (yay federalism!) and all those who need subsidies to afford Obamacare policies would get them (yay universal healthcare!).
But a funny thing happened on the way to utopia, and only 14 states (plus D.C.) took that too-tempting offer, perhaps having been burned too many times before by the regulations that accompany any pots of “free” federal money. And that’s why we ended up with King v. Burwell: Obamacare the reality doesn’t accomplish Obamacare the dream.“
We’ll watch to see how badly Obamacare fares over the next two years. And we’ll hope that eventually Congress can fashion a new health care plan that creates more choice, reduces taxes, increases competition and reduces coercive rules and regulatory burdens.