King v. Burwell (Obamacare) and its invisible elephant in the room

I've done extensive research on King v. Burwell and I have come to the conclusion that there is an invisible elephant in the room that almost no one is talking about. It's summed up in the following sentence:

"The employer mandate, in other words, seems clearly tied to the availability of the premium support tax credits, and in states where the federally established exchange operates, it might be that very few, if any, employers will be subject to the employer mandate in the wake of a decision against the Administration in King."
www.heritage.org...

The reasons why that may happen is given in detail in the quoted article below. But, my conspiratorial mind is jumping and I think I've found the answer to many questions being raised about King v. Burwell:

Why did the Supreme Court decide to hear the case at all?
Why did the Supreme Court decide to hear the case so quickly?
Why does the Supreme Court seem likely to decide the case in favor of the plantiffs?

In my mind's eye I see suitcases of cash being delivered to five Supreme Court justices tout de suite.

Just think about the amount of money on the line with King v. Burwell. Ending the employer mandate in 34 states doesn't just free up untold billions of dollars for the companies in those states. For many, it will give them a reason to continue at all. I've read that businesses have closed just because they cannot rationalize following Obamacare.

Imagine basically ALL new entrepreneurs only being willing to start businesses in the 34 states where they will have more freedom. Meanwhile, businesses in the approximately 16 states where the employer mandate continues on will have a huge incentive to leave those states for greener pastures.

And here's a huge issue that I've heard NO ONE mention concerning King v. Burwell:

The 6 million or so Americans who will lose their Obamacare subsidies in the wake of a decision for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell can simply MOVE to a state where they can get the subsidies they need.

Think about that...the productive members of society will have massive incentives to move out of the states with the subsidies while the less productive members will have massive incentives to move into those states.

It doesn't take a genius to see what would probably happen. The states without subsidies would most likely flourish compared to the states with subsidies.

The 6 million or so Americans who will lose their Obamacare subsidies in the wake of a decision for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell is really NOTHING compared to the bigger issues involved.

The incredible thing to me is that the bigger issues involved are NOT being mentioned at all in the media. There's a total media blackout on King v. Burwell's effect on the employer mandate in 34 states. Are the reporters incompetent or are they being paid off or ordered to shut up?

Here's a completely different huge issue at stake with the case that's not being mentioned in the MSM AT ALL and barely mentioned in alternative media:

King v. Burwell Pits Rule Of Law Against Rule By Decree

How the Obama administration has handled Obamacare is at odds with fundamental American concepts like rule of law and separation of powers. The Supreme Court should see that in King v. Burwell.
thefederalist.com...

There's so much at stake with this decision, there's plenty of money to go around and pay off everyone. That's the conspiracy angle that's been completely missed concerning King v. Burwell.

The Employer Mandate and the Tax Credit
The employer mandate is even more clearly affected by the King case. The health care law notes that large employers, defined as those who employ an average of 50 full-time employees or more during a calendar year, either must provide minimum essential coverage to employees or, if they elect not to do so, must not have any employee receiving a premium support tax credit or cost-sharing reduction.[32]
In other words, a penalty will be assessed to any employer that fails either to provide health insurance that contains the minimum essential coverage or to pay wages that are high enough that no single full-time employee is eligible for federal monies. Obviously, if the tax credit is unavailable in a state where the federally established exchange operates, a relevant employer can be penalized only if one of its full-time employees receives a cost-sharing reduction.
As it turns out, however, the cost-sharing reductions in the health care law are predicated on the availability of the premium support tax credit.[33] Those who are eligible for cost-sharing reductions closely mirror those who are eligible for the tax credit.[34]
Thus, if the plaintiffs in King are successful, most of those who are affected will also be “eligible insured” for the purposes of the cost-sharing subsidies. However, the law contains a section with “definitions and special rules” that reads, in pertinent part:
(2) Limitations on reduction
No cost-sharing reduction shall be allowed under this section with respect to coverage for any month unless the month is a coverage month with respect to which a credit is allowed to the insured (or an applicable taxpayer on behalf of the insured) under section 36B of such title.
What this means is that if the plaintiffs in King are successful, no cost-sharing reduction payments shall go out, and, therefore, no employers will meet the requirements for them to pay the penalty. The employer mandate, in other words, seems clearly tied to the availability of the premium support tax credits, and in states where the federally established exchange operates, it might be that very few, if any, employers will be subject to the employer mandate in the wake of a decision against the Administration in King.[35]
www.heritage.org...

a reply to: Profusion

I just want the ACA to be repealed sooner rather than later.

It does no one any good to maintain the fiction that it can work and the longer we wait, the more likely wholly socialized medicine will be.

I found that the issue of many employers no longer being subject to the employer mandate in the wake of a decision for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell was mentioned in the oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Notice in the oral arguments how the issue was totally downplayed and even swept under the rug. Why? As soon as the "elephant in the room" issue came up, oral arguments came to a sudden, screaching halt. It's like there is a complete blackout on this issue almost everwhere.

14  JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR:  Could I follow up on
15 something the General ended with, which ­­ and Justice
16 Kennedy referred to, which is the need to read subsidies
17 limited.  But so is ­­ in a limited way.  But so is the
18 need to ensure that exemptions from tax liability are
19 read in a limited way.  And under your reading, we're
20 giving more exemptions to employers not to provide
21 insurance, more exemptions to States and others or to
22 individuals, how ­­ how does that work?  I mean, you've
23 got two competing ­­
24  MR. CARVIN:  No, no.  You do get more
25 exemptions for employers under our reading, but ­­and
1 the same principle applies.  Is it unambiguous?  It's
2 undisputed that that one is unambiguous.
www.supremecourt.gov...

More evidence for the blackout. In the following video which is an intense, "thorough", discussion of King v. Burwell and its ramifications, when the "elephant in the room" issue was brought up it was again swept under the rug. You can see the one time the issue was brought up starting 47 minutes into the video. The expert who is asked to speak on the topic says he will address the issue "very briefly." Why does it have to be done "very briefly" just like it was in the oral arguments before the Supreme Court? The expert goes on to spend a total of about 30 seconds explaining the basics of the issue.

I realize that I might lose people if I start discussing the Matrix or the Twilight Zone but those are the vibes I'm getting here.


www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Profusion

Is this a sort of forced migration then?
Also, are the 6m people losing their policies mixed or is it people on the breadline?

a reply to: EA006

Also, are the 6m people losing their policies mixed or is it people on the breadline?

That issue is addressed in detail in the video I posted previously in this thread.

I don't know if this whole thing was masterminded or not. If it's been masterminded then anyone with inside information isn't talking, maybe on their death bed.

I think a case could be made that this whole thing is a grand conspiracy from the republicans. It's easy for me to imagine such a conspiracy, look at how it's played out. And if it goes the way that I opined in the original post, it would work out like a coup for the "red states." They would be free from Obamacare and they would have a huge leg up on the "blue states." It wouldn't even be a fair contest at all from then on.

The way I see it is like a race were the "red states" without Obamacare would get to run freely and unimpeded to the finish line. The "blue states" with Obamacare would be running with a huge steel ball tied around their knecks. And that doesn't even take into account the issue of a possible "forced migration" as you put it. That would just make the whole thing that much more unfair.

And considering the infamous worldview of so many republicans (concerning their unwillingness to help the needy), the "forced migration" may be their wet dream come true. Just imagine ridding their states of "useless eaters."

This whole thing could work out so well for the republicans that it makes me wonder if Obamacare wasn't their plan secretly from the beginning.


www.youtube.com...

I finally found the "elephant in the room" issue mentioned in the MSM:

The decision would also have numerous implications beyond that. It would effectively eliminate the employer mandate in those states, because Obamacare's penalties on businesses that don't offer acceptable health insurance are only triggered when a worker obtains federal subsidies. Without the subsidies, there is no employer mandate.

Source: www.washingtonexaminer.com...

But, the issue is only stated in a matter of fact way and in the briefest way possible (just like the other such examples I've given in this thread). The implications of that paragraph are enormous and they aren't even hinted at. It really couldn't be a bigger issue financially than possibly any other Supreme Court decision in history. And yet most of the implications are being ignored. In fact, the MSM and all other media I've seen are trying to make it seem like the states without subsidies will lose financially if the subsidies are found illegal. Nothing could be further from the truth in the big picture. Only the medical and insurance industries would suffer. Every other sector would flourish.

And something even bigger than money could be at stake and that's the credibility of the legal system in America. How can the system be considered credible in any way at all if the Supreme Court condones a presidential administration breaking the law? It's stuff right of the Twilight Zone. It's one thing for it to just happen which is bad enough. For the Supreme Court to condone it, that's unthinkable.

The fact that four of the nine Supreme Court Justices will almost certainly condone lawlessness because their political party is doing it, well, it's things like this that make me lose hope in humanity completely.

My prediction is that the decision will be 5-4 in favor of the plaintiffs with the decision being split on party lines. It's totally absurd for that to be the case. Those who are worried about millions losing subsidies are condoning lawlessness. They are on the wrong side, period. You have to understand that if a future presidential administration (via the IRS) wanted to enforce the ACA by the clear text in the law, it could stop the subsidies in the future and it would be completely legal.

If the Supreme Court allows the subsidies to continue, future presidential administrations (via the IRS) could go either way, allow the subsidies one administration, stop them the next. Can't people see that's madness? And that is not just my theory, Chief Justice Roberts brought up the same point during the oral arguments.

The Supreme Court cannot allow lawlessness in my opinion. Not in any kind of a sane world. But, if there were five democrats in the Supreme Court, the lawlessness would almost definitely be condoned. That alone causes me to lose complete faith in the system. Not to mention, it doesn't even makes sense for them because a future administration (via the IRS) could enforce the law as its written and they would be out in the cold and there would be nothing they could do about it. They would have created that mess by condoning lawlessness.

If America really wanted true justice, all nine Supreme Court Justices would be political independents owing allegiance to no political party. Then we would have a chance at true justice. But, that's just another thing that could never be allowed to happen in the current system that exists.

Very good analysis. It just goes to reinforce the notion that this law was ill-conceived from the get-go and should never have passed. It will be ironic if the people who wrote it in effect outsmarted themselves with their own wording.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Profusion

I just want the ACA to be repealed sooner rather than later.

It does no one any good to maintain the fiction that it can work and the longer we wait, the more likely wholly socialized medicine will be.

Considering Obamacare isn't anything even CLOSE to socialized health care, I fail to see your point. Obamacare is more like forced capitalism.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Profusion

I just want the ACA to be repealed sooner rather than later.

It does no one any good to maintain the fiction that it can work and the longer we wait, the more likely wholly socialized medicine will be.

Considering Obamacare isn't anything even CLOSE to socialized health care, I fail to see your point. Obamacare is more like forced capitalism.

The point is that we may be able to rebuild the private health care market but the longer we wait the more likely the only option left will be a nationalization (full socialization) of the industry. What many believe was the original plan.

a reply to: greencmp

I've said it for awhile now, and I guess it needs repeating again. Obamacare is literally a hand out to the insurance companies because the Democrats couldn't stick to their guns of wanting truly socialized healthcare and caved to the Republicans to implement the Republican plan. The one of the reasons this happened is because the Democrats didn't want to put a whole industry out of business (thus creating MORE unemployed people). The likelihood of the ACA leading to socialized healthcare is minimal. What's more likely is that they'll just "fix" the ACA (translation: hammer the square peg into the round hole until it is wedged in there good and tight) so that it kind of works. The reason I say this is because that is what the government does with ALL of its faulty legislation. It rarely ever just repeals and starts over.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

I've said it for awhile now, and I guess it needs repeating again. Obamacare is literally a hand out to the insurance companies because the Democrats couldn't stick to their guns of wanting truly socialized healthcare and caved to the Republicans to implement the Republican plan. The one of the reasons this happened is because the Democrats didn't want to put a whole industry out of business (thus creating MORE unemployed people). The likelihood of the ACA leading to socialized healthcare is minimal. What's more likely is that they'll just "fix" the ACA (translation: hammer the square peg into the round hole until it is wedged in there good and tight) so that it kind of works. The reason I say this is because that is what the government does with ALL of its faulty legislation. It rarely ever just repeals and starts over.

I agree and when it fails, the fall back will be "single payer" as you correctly recognize was the original intention.

a reply to: greencmp

See you are assuming that it WILL fail and not just simply create tons of problems that the government tries to "fix" with piecemeal legislation like they do with everything else. The Social Security Act has been in the process of "failing" for decades now and instead of letting it just die already, the government just keeps passing piecemeal legislation to let it continue to limp along. Why you'd think the ACA would be treated any differently is beyond me.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

See you are assuming that it WILL fail and not just simply create tons of problems that the government tries to "fix" with piecemeal legislation like they do with everything else. The Social Security Act has been in the process of "failing" for decades now and instead of letting it just die already, the government just keeps passing piecemeal legislation to let it continue to limp along. Why you'd think the ACA would be treated any differently is beyond me.

Social programs always fail, you are right that they don't let bad policy fail outright.

You do realize that you are using social security as your example of how these programs aren't socialism?

a reply to: greencmp

I didn't bring up Social Security to prove that the ACA isn't a Socialist policy... I brought it up to prove a point about the government being stubborn about not letting failed legislation die.

The ACA really ISN'T Socialist. It forces everyone to buy insurance to artificially keep the prices low (of course such idiocy laughs in the face of the rules of supply in demand) and to be able to insurance people with pre-existing conditions without the insurance companies going bankrupt. A TRULY Socialist ACA would just be a system like Canada's where we don't need insurance anymore.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

I didn't bring up Social Security to prove that the ACA isn't a Socialist policy... I brought it up to prove a point about the government being stubborn about not letting failed legislation die.

The ACA really ISN'T Socialist. It forces everyone to buy insurance to artificially keep the prices low (of course such idiocy laughs in the face of the rules of supply in demand) and to be able to insurance people with pre-existing conditions without the insurance companies going bankrupt. A TRULY Socialist ACA would just be a system like Canada's where we don't need insurance anymore.

We agree, the implication is that the failure of the crony ACA would result in socialization (like in Canada).

a reply to: greencmp

I just don't see the ACA failing any time soon. It just isn't likely, even if a Republican were to take over the Presidency. As for what would replace it if it did fail, I don't think socialized medicine would even be in the cards, because it is likely the government would bankrupt itself first before letting the ACA fail.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I hope it fails outright and soon.

a reply to: greencmp

I agree, either the Libertarian solution (no government health care) or the Socialist solution (true socialized health care) would be preferable to what we have now... All we have now is just a speed lane to increase insurance costs even more.

If one accepts the premise that the law was designed to fail so that people would demand single-payer healthcare, then we have to assume that socialized medicine IS the ultimate goal.