Supreme Court might yet destroy Cover Oregon, Obamacare

So you thought that the mess surrounding the failed Cover Oregon online health insurance exchange couldn't get any more convoluted?

The U.S. Supreme Court begs to differ.

Last week's decision by the court to hear a new challenge to President Barack Obama's health care law carries with it the potential to bounce back in unexpected ways to Oregonians.

The lawsuit the court agreed to hear is King v. Burwell, a Virginia case challenging the tax subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford health insurance.

The challengers in the case argue that those subsidies are being provided unlawfully in three dozen states that have decided not to run the public marketplaces known as exchanges for the sale of health insurance. They say that under a literal reading of the law, subsides are available only in states that established their own exchanges.

If the court sides with the challengers — and we know at least four justices thought the case was worthy of at least being heard — people receiving the tax subsidies in those states would become ineligible for them. It would be a devastating, and perhaps fatal, blow to the Affordable Care Act.

Here's part of the reason why: According to a story in The New York Times, people who received the subsidies through the exchanges enjoyed on average a 76 percent reduction in their premiums, from $346 a month to $82. If the court rules in favor of the challengers in this case, the ruling could eliminate subsidies for 4.5 million people. (It's unlikely, however, that anyone would have to pay back the subsidies.)

Without the subsidies, health insurance could well become unaffordable for many consumers, who would then be exempted from the requirement to have insurance. That requirement is at the heart of the Affordable Care Act.

Last week, a White House spokesman said the lawsuit was little more than "a partisan effort to undermine the Affordable Care Act," and that position seems to have some merit. But the fact remains that the high court will hear the case, regardless of the motivations of the challengers.

Here's where Cover Oregon fits into this: The state is in the process of switching over to a federal site after the online portion of Oregon's exchange never properly functioned. If the Supreme Court rules for the challengers, would Oregon be considered one of the states which has not run its own exchange and therefore is ineligible for the tax subsidies? ...

(I)f the court does rule in favor of the challengers, expect this latest Cover Oregon wrinkle to be a mere footnote to what could be the obituary for the Affordable Care Act.

— Democrat-Herald, Albany, Nov. 13

Avoid a liberal agenda for Oregon

During this season's legislative campaign, talk focused on the economy, jobs, education and health reform. But now that Democrats have increased their majorities, the conversation is shifting to more controversial topics, such as fuel standards and gun background checks.

Oregon Democrats have gained two seats in the state Senate, giving them an 18-12 supermajority, which means they can pass any bill without a single Republican vote, even ones having to do with taxes. In the House, they picked up one seat for a 35-25 majority. The party also held onto the governorship.

That gives the leadership hope of passing bills that failed earlier, as well as advancing other agenda items that got less attention when candidates were courting voters just weeks ago. Many sound good until you dig into their complications and unintended consequences, as we've noted in past editorials and will revisit as they come before legislative committees in 2015. Think paid sick leave, minimum-wage increases, state-sponsored retirement plans, automatic voter registration, among others, and the aforementioned fuel standards, legal aid and gun issues.

If these and other liberal wish-list items dominate legislative action in 2015, work on jobs and the economy — our most critical problems — will suffer. ...

— The Bulletin, Bend, Nov. 13