CAN KING V. BURWELL REVIVE THE ECONOMY?

[Geee]

American Spectator:

The Democrats and their media allies have predicted wrack and ruin if the Supreme Court rules against the government in King v. Burwell, a decision that would stop the IRS from issuing Obamacare subsidies through federal insurance exchanges in three-dozen states. They have wildly exaggerated the inconvenience that such a ruling would cause a tiny percentage of the population and ignored the benefits that it would provide tens of millions of Americans. One of these benefits would be the removal of PPACA’s dead weight from an economy whose first quarter performance suggests that the anemic Obama recovery may be stalling.

 

During the first three months of 2015, Gross Domestic Product contracted at an annual rate of 0.7 percent. And, euphoric “news” stories about the government’s May jobs report notwithstanding, this year’s monthly job gains remain well below last year’s average. It is difficult to prove that Obamacare alone has caused the slowdown, but it tends to confirm the inauspicious findings of several Federal Reserve surveys concerning the law’s economic effects. Even if “reform” isn’t solely to blame, there can be little doubt that removing its mandates from the backs of employers and workers in three-quarters of the states would stimulate the national economy.

 

And a SCOTUS ruling against the Obama administration would eliminate those job-killing mandates. Media coverage concerning King v. Burwell has focused on the loss of subsidies that some would face if the Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, and a few million people may indeed have to pay the full price of their own Obamacare coverage. But that’s only a small part of the story. Such a ruling would emancipate 11.1 million people from the individual mandate, according to a study recently released by the American Action Forum (AFF), which also estimates that 262,000 businesses would be freed from the law’s employer mandate.

[Geee]

This New State Data Shows the Real Story Behind King v. Burwell

 

As director of the Center for Health Policy Studies, Nina Owcharenko oversees The Heritage Foundation’s research and policy prescriptions on such issues as health care reform on the federal and state levels, Medicare and Medicaid, children’s health and prescription drugs. Read her research.

Every day there seems to be another article focused on how many individuals might lose their subsidies if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs in the King v. Burwell case.

 

 

Yet, an even bigger group of individuals harmed by Obamacare has an equally good claim for relief that hasn’t gotten as much attention—the people who, thanks to Obamacare, must pay more for health insurance but who never got subsidies.

 

The Obamacare subsidies were intended, in part, to hide the law’s unpopular effects. At their root, Obamacare’s costly regulations, dictating what insurers can sell and what individuals and employer can buy, have resulted in premium costs going up, not down. In the 34 states potentially affected by the Court’s ruling, those regulations have driven up costs not only for the estimated 6.4 million receiving coverage subsidies, but also for at least another 15 million who have been forced to pay more for their health insurance without getting any subsidy.

http://dailysignal.com/2015/06/08/this-new-state-data-shows-the-real-story-behind-king-v-burwell/