Tag: Obamacare

The Obamacare Giveaway, Connecticut Edition: Earn $62k and Get Health Insurance for less than $58/Year

Several days ago, I pointed out that a married couple earning $62,000 in Wisconsin could get health insurance under Obamacare with no monthly premiums. Now it’s time to move onto Connecticut. Connecticut runs its own exchange, known as access health CT.

Among the 114,000 individuals aged 55 to 64 in Fairfield County, Connecticut, roughly two-thirds – or 77,000 people – rely on employer coverage, where the odds are high that they’re paying something out of their own pocket for monthly premiums.

Consider married couple earning $62,000. Each is 64-years-old, a non-smoker, and lives in Fairfield County, Connecticut. The structure of Obamacare subsidies means that many individuals who are not poor can find health plans with such large subsidies that they pay virtually nothing for premiums out of their own pocket. In this case, the couple would qualify for the HealthyCT Bronze Basic HSA 1 Plan for $4.79 per month in premium – or $2.40 per month for each person in that household. If the couple chooses this plan, it pays less than 0.1% of its total income towards health care premiums. That’s not a typo – and it doesn’t say one percent – the household would pay one-tenth of one percent of their income towards premiums. Subsidies pay for more than 99% of the monthly premium.

See the graphic below for this married couple:

King v. Burwell: Six Humpty Dumptys Playing Calvinball

My King v. Burwell recap is up at SCOTUSblog. Excerpt:

In King v. Burwell, all nine Supreme Court Justices agreed on one thing. The King challengers claimed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to issue tax credits and impose the related penalties only “through an Exchange established by the State,” and not through exchanges established by the federal government. “Petitioners’ arguments about the plain meaning of Section 36B are strong,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, and their interpretation is “the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.” Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, finding the meaning of that phrase “so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.”

There was no dissent about the plain meaning of the phrase “through an Exchange established by the State.” All seven of the other Justices joined one of those two opinions. Nor was there dissent about the fact that that phrase, used repeatedly in the statute, is the only provision of the Act that speaks directly to the question presented. Not a single Justice lent credence to the government’s assertions that this was a meritless case, or one that the Court should never have accepted. Nor was there dissent about the consequences of that provision’s plain meaning in the face of broad state resistance to the ACA. All agreed that withholding tax credits in the thirty-four states with federal exchanges could lead to adverse selection in those states, with premiums climbing higher and higher in a “death spiral.”

Where disagreement emerged was over the question of whether the former should alter the latter – whether the potential for adverse consequences “compels” the Court to disregard the universally acknowledged meaning of the operative text. The Court split six to three in favor of rewriting plain text, and rendering the requirement “established by the State” a nullity…

Roberts managed to conclude that “by the State” could be read to mean “by the federal government,” even though he acknowledged Congress explicitly defined “State” in a way “that does not include the Federal Government.” So perhaps spending more time with the statute would not have helped.

The King ruling is actually much, much worse than this excerpt suggests. Read the whole thing. For a reference guide to King, click here.

Video: Teachers Victimized by IRS’s Illegal Taxes Call King v. Burwell a “Godsend”

Yesterday, I blogged about the 70 million Americans President Obama is subjecting to illegal taxes, who would be freed from those taxes by a ruling for the challengers in King v. Burwell. Many of the victims of those illegal taxes are teachers. Kevin Pace, for example, is a jazz musician and music professor in Northern Virginia who lost $8,000 of income in one year alone when the Obama administration unlawfully imposed ObamaCare’s employer mandate on his employer. 

A group called American Commitment has produced a short video telling the stories of two more victims of these illegal taxes. One says these illegal taxes reduced his hours worked by 40 percent, calling it “absurd” and “unfair.” Another says a ruling for the King v. Burwell challengers would be a “godsend” and asks Congress to “come to its senses and give me back my hours, please.”

State-by-State Data on the Number of Taxpayers King v. Burwell Would Free from Illegal Taxes

A ruling for the challengers in King v. Burwell would have benefits that swamp other effects of the ruling, including:

  • More than 67 million Americans would be freed from illegal taxes in the form of ObamaCare’s employer mandate.
  • More than 11 million Americans would be freed from an illegal tax averaging $1,200 (i.e., ObamaCare’s individual mandate).
  • Affected workers could receive a pay raise of around $900 per year.
  • The ruling could create an estimated 237,000 new jobs.
  • It could add an estimated 1.3 million workers added to the labor force.
  • It could result in more hours and higher incomes for 3.3 million part-time workers.

The number of people who could benefit from a ruling for the challengers is, therefore, more than ten times the number who would lose an illegal subsidy. And, as discussed here, the pool of people who need such subsidies may be as small as one-tenth the number receiving them.

Click here for state-by-state data on the number of employers and taxpayers who would benefit from King v. Burwell.

Obama’s King v. Burwell Speech Displayed the Very Ideological Fervor that Led Him to Break the Law

In a case called King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court will soon decide whether it agrees with two lower courts that President Obama is breaking the law by subjecting 57 million employers and individuals to illegal taxes, and spending the illegal proceeds to hide the cost of HealthCare.gov coverage from 6.5 million enrollees. Today the president delivered a speech designed to cow the Supreme Court Justices into turning a blind eye to the law. Instead, he offered what for some is the missing piece of the King v. Burwell puzzle. He displayed the very ideological fervor that leads powerful people to break the rules.

“We have an obligation to put ourselves in our neighbor’s shoes, and to see the common humanity in each other,” the president said. Yet the president of the United States has an even more important obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”  It’s right there in Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which President Obama swore to uphold. King v. Burwell is about his failure to meet that obligation.  

King v. Burwell: Obama Pounds the Table to Distract Attention from His Lawbreaking

There is an old lawyers’ adage: “When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. When neither are on your side, pound the table.” President Obama will deliver a speech today in which he pounds the table with the supposed successes of the Affordable Care Act. The address is part effort to influence the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision in King v. Burwell, part effort to spin a potential loss in that case.

The problem is, those supposed successes are not due to the ACA. They are the product, two federal courts have found, of billions of dollars of illegal taxes, borrowing, and spending imposed by the IRS at the behest of the president’s political appointees.

The president can pound the table all he wants about his theories of what Congress intended, or how, in his opinion, those illegal taxes have benefited America. No speech can change the fact that he signed into law a health care bill that makes it unmistakably clear that those taxes and subsidies are only available “through an Exchange established by the State.” If he didn’t like that part of the bill, he shouldn’t have signed it.

Senate Hearing on King v. Burwell This Thursday

At 2pm this Thursday, I will be testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts at a hearing investigating how the Internal Revenue Service developed the (illegal) “tax-credit rule” challenged in King v. Burwell. Witnesses include three Treasury and IRS officials involved in drafting the rule:

Panel I

The Honorable Mark Mazur
Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy
Department of the Treasury

Ms. Emily McMahon
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy
Department of the Treasury

Ms. Cameron Arterton
Deputy Tax Legislative Counsel for Tax Policy
Department of the Treasury

The second panel will consist of Michael Carvin (lead attorney for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell, who argued the case before the Supreme Court), University of Iowa tax-law professor Andy Grewal (who discovered three additional ways, beyond King, that the IRS expanded eligibility for tax credits beyond clear limits imposed by the ACA), and me.