Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute explains the King v Burwell legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act. According to Cannon, the language in the law that excludes certain states from receiving federal health insurance subsidies is not a drafting error. Cannon argues that the language is in fact representative of Congress's intent to pressure states to implementing their own health insurance exchanges. Cannon estimates that more than 57 million Americans in 34 states are currently being subject to illegal taxation, and that a Supreme Court ruling for the plaintiff would give relief to those Americans. Cannon outlines several different possible outcomes, and suggests that in the event of a ruling for the plaintiff, Congress should hold a repeal vote, which although it would be vetoed by the President, would be helpful in terms of reopening the discussion over how to reform healthcare.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
"When I need to get up to speed on some new issue, I go to HealthPolicy.tv."
— Ben C., Baltimore, MD