Tea-Publicans in Congress vote for the 56th time to gut ‘ObamaCare’

In early March the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, in which Libertarian lawyers who write for the Volokh Conspiracy at the Washington Post will make a  Textualism argument that the text of “ObamaCare” limits federal subsidies only to people who buy insurance from state-run exchanges, not from the federal exchange.

In recent weeks amicus briefs have been filed in support of the Obama administration’s position that federal subsidies extend to the federal exchanges, and in support of preserving the long-established rules of statutory construction and interpretation. The rationale behind the King v. Burwell case has been entirely debunked. See, Anti-ACA case descends into gibberish and In King v. Burwell, we already know the plaintiffs are wrong. But will SCOTUS care? for a brief summary.

What these Libertarian lawyers are engaged in, in my opinion, is perpetrating a fraud upon the court, for which the U.S. Supreme Court should impose sanctions and refer these lawyers for bar disciplinary proceedings. I have rarely seen anything as blatant as this. This case should not be in front of the Supreme Court.

Should the Court actually side with the plaintiff’s in this case, in furtherance of their fraud, we will have a serious constitutional crisis on our hands.

Should the Court side with the plaintiffs, millions of Americans will lose their subsidies for healthcare insurance. This decision would unleash chaos and do considerable harm to insurers, families, state budgets, the federal budget, and to hospitals.

Steve Benen wrote last week, With the high court’s help, GOP welcomes healthcare chaos:

Occasionally, congressional Republicans have said American families need not panic about the outcome of the King v. Burwell case at the Supreme Court.

The message, for the most part, seemed directed at the Supreme Court justices themselves. “Go ahead and gut the Affordable Care Act,” Republicans signaled to the court. “Well make sure the consequences aren’t too severe.”

The posture was a lie. We’re reminded this morning that if GOP justices on the high court are worried about societal effects and the real-world impact of the King v. Burwell case, they should know that Republicans in Congress will welcome chaos, sit back, and watch the American health care system burn.

Congressional Republicans say they won’t move to preserve consumers’ health insurance tax credits if the Supreme Court strikes them down, raising the stakes in the latest legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act. […]

Leaders in the GOP-controlled House and Senate see the court challenge as their best hope for tearing apart a law they have long opposed. If the court strikes down the subsidies, Democrats are expected to clamor for lawmakers to pass a measure correcting the language in the law to revive them. Congressional Republicans say there is no possibility they would allow that.

Remember, as far as the public is concerned, a clear majority of Americans would expect the Republican Congress to protect consumers from hardship. Indeed, Greg Sargent this week flagged the latest report from the Kaiser Family Foundation, which found that nearly two-thirds of Americans would expect lawmakers to keep existing subsidies in place if the Supreme Court ruling goes the wrong way. Only a fourth of the country would expect Congress to do nothing.

The same report found that even most Republicans support states setting up exchange marketplaces so that families can continue to receive subsidized access to medical care. This is, of course, the exact opposite of what GOP policymakers have in mind.

With this context in mind, the TanMan’s House GOP voted today — for the 56th time — to gut “ObamaCare.” House votes to repeal ObamaCare:

The vote was 239-186. Every Democrat in the chamber opposed the measure, and three Republicans, Reps. Robert Dold (Ill.), John Katko (N.Y.) and Bruce Poliquin (Maine) voted against repeal.

* * *

This is the first time the House has coupled an ObamaCare repeal vote with instructions to write a replacement, but they included a significant caveat. The legislation doesn’t impose any deadlines on committees to finish their work.

In other words, the GOP replacement is a sham. It has been promised for 5 years.

Greg Sargent of the Washington Post explains what is at stake. Today’s GOP vote to repeal Obamacare is a very big deal. Here’s why:

Today House Republicans will hold yet another vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The vote is widely being seen as meaningless. As the Atlantic’s Russell Berman puts it:

They’re doing it for the freshmen — that is, the 47 House Republicans who just took office a month ago and have never had the high honor and privilege of voting to repeal Obamacare. By holding the vote, these lawmakers can head back to their districts and tell their constituents that yes, they did everything they could to get rid of the reviled law.

Added one GOP aide: “We’re just getting it out of the way.”

But today’s action amounts to more than just a symbolic gesture or checking a box. Today’s repeal vote comes in the context of a broad debate over the King v. Burwell challenge, which, if upheld by the Supreme Court, could yank subsidies and health coverage from millions and unleash untold disruptions in insurance markets across the country. The repeal vote is a reminder that the only consensus GOP position on health reform is to blow up Obamacare and replace it with nothing. That could have important implications for King v. Burwell.

Your humble blogger is not the only one pointing out these implications. Republican lawmakers believe that having some kind of consensus position of their own on health reform — one that purports to expand coverage — would make it easier for the Supreme Court to side with the challengers and gut subsidies. As Politico puts it this morning:

Some Republicans believe that having a plan — or the outlines of one — in place would send the Supreme Court the message that ruling against the White House won’t result in total chaos, particularly for those people who have already benefited from subsidies.

Similarly, conservative critics of Obamacare have urged Republicans to have an alternative in place in the event of such a ruling. Senate Republicans have also talked publicly about having a “fix” of some kind in place, though at a price.

As I have tediously repeated, this talk from lawmakers is likely part of a bait and switch designed to make the consequences of a decision siding with the challengers look less dire, thus making such a decision more likely. Indeed, the reality was nicely captured in that Politico piece by Lamar Alexander, chairman of the Senate health and education committee:

“We want to be responsible about repairing any damage that Obamacare does. If it creates a shock to the system by causing 5 million Americans suddenly to put their insurance and their subsidies at risk, then we need to think if there’s anything we need to do. Maybe there’s not.”

Maybe there’s not! Now, this doesn’t preclude Republicans from offering an alternative that doesn’t have anything to do with fixing the subsidy problem but purports to expand coverage in some other way. But it seems highly likely there won’t be any consensus alternative by the time the Supreme Court oral arguments take place next month. And as today’s repeal vote — symbolic or not — confirms, doing away with Obamacare subsidies for everyone in the country who is receiving them is the actual consensus GOP position.

Will the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court notice? Will they even care? Is the “fix” in to disregard long-standing rules of statutory construction and interpretation, and the clearly expressed will of Congress, so that five unelected conservative activist Justices can do the dirty work for Tea-Publicans in Congress who have been thwarted in their single-minded purpose to destroy “ObamaCare”?