Balkinization |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahman sabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Is the Republican Effort to Destroy the ACA Dead?
|
Sunday, July 30, 2017
Is the Republican Effort to Destroy the ACA Dead?
David Super No. That question can be asked from a procedural perspective, a political perspective, or a practical perspective, but in each instance the answer is “no”. This post takes each of these points of view, explores the possible future of the Republicans’ efforts against the ACA, and identifies the markers that would actually mean that the assault on the ACA is finished.
Procedurally, the particular amendment the Senate was
considering late Thursday night is dead.
When a majority leader wants to hold onto the possibility of a revote,
he or (someday) she switches to the winning side so as to be able to move for
reconsideration of the vote. Senator
McConnell did not do that, so absent a motion from one of the 51 senators that
opposed the “skinny repeal”, that vote is final. But the vote was not on the underlying bill,
which is still the House-passed American Health Care Act (AHCA). As a result, the Majority Leader can bring
that bill back up at any time. He could
even bring up an amendment substantially identical to the one that was defeated
if he thought he had the votes. All he
did after the vote was return the bill to the Senate calendar, where it is
available for action at any time.
In addition, much
of the impact of the Republican health care bills – although not of the “skinny repeal” that lost
51-49 – was the savage cutting of Medicaid.
The House Budget Committee has reported out a budget resolution for
Fiscal Year 2018 that would require congressional committees to make deep cuts
in anti-poverty programs to pay for tax cuts.
If the AHCA fails, the budget committees can easily add its proposed
Medicaid cuts to the budget resolution and try to pass them again as part of a
tax cut bill. That legislation, unlike
AHCA, is likely to have powerful corporate support.
The procedural point
at which the direct assault on the ACA will die is when the House and Senate
agree on a budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2018 without the Senate having
first passed a version of the anti-ACA reconciliation bill (AHCA or a
substitute). At that point, the anti-ACA
reconciliation instruction will have been superseded and the bill will no
longer enjoy reconciliation protection against filibusters. A concurrent budget resolution for 2018 is a
pre-requisite for the Republicans’ obtaining reconciliation protection for
their tax cut bill. On the other hand,
as long as they have no agreement about what they want to pass on taxes, they
have little reason to finalize the budget resolution and close off their
options on health care.
Politically, the
vote late Thursday night was extraordinarily contingent, with stunning blunders
by both the Administration and the Republican House leadership. For ACA supporters, it was far, far better
than a loss, but those declaring the battle won are viewing what happened with
remarkably rose-colored glasses. First, 49
senators have now clearly signaled that they will vote for pretty much
anything. Yes, a few peeled off on the
votes on preliminary amendments that everyone knew would fail anyway (and on
which Sen. McConnell made no effort to enforce party discipline). But when the chips were down, 49 voted for “a
pig in a poke”. We no longer have
plausible hopes that Sens. Portman (OH) and Capito (WV) would refrain from
savaging the ACA because of the consequences for the opioid epidemic or the
vast numbers of people newly ensured people in their states. The supposed influence of anti-repeal Republican
governors in Ohio and Nevada failed to sway Sens. Portman and Heller (NV). (To be fair, Sen. Heller did vote against
both plans that would explicitly cut Medicaid so his vote might be in play on a
broader repeal bill.) And the supposed libertarian
principles of Sen. Paul (KY) quickly crumbled. Even the storied influence of the health care
industry failed to keep Republicans from voting for a bill that would have been
financially disastrous for it.
Second, of the
three Republicans who did vote “no” – all of whom must remain opposed for the
legislation to stall unless Sen. Heller replaces one of them – only Sen.
Collins (ME) seems solid in her opposition.
Earlier in the week, Sen. McCain (AZ) voted for a “repeal and replace”
bill that violated all the principles he espoused: it was drafted in secret with no hearings or
committee mark-ups, it was entirely partisan, and it would have increased
dramatically the ranks of the uninsured.
He had earlier been one of three senators demanding that the House
commit to not passing the “skinny repeal” bill and sending it directly to the
President. When Speaker Paul Ryan
released a coy statement that made no such assurances – and House Majority
Leader McCarthy told his Members they might need to postpone their recess to
cast a quick vote on health care – Sen. McCain had little trouble smelling a
rat. That hardly means he will oppose a bill
that devastates the ACA but comes without procedural shenanigans.
As for Sen.
Murkowski (AK), she would have humiliated herself had she voted for the bill
two days after media reports of Interior Secretary Zinke’s crude threats to
her. But she has not historically been
much of a moderate or dissenter. She is
far more engaged with muscling through environmentally
deleterious development projects.
Although the ACA’s loss would be devastating to the expensive health
care infrastructure, one can imagine her responding to less thuggish overtures.
Finally, Speaker
Ryan’s refusal to promise not to pass the “skinny repeal” bill as-is, even when
that promise appeared crucial to the bill’s chances in the Senate, strongly
suggests that this is just what he plans to do with any bill that passes the
Senate. Thus, if any bill does get
through the Senate, the ACA is probably doomed.
Majority Leader
McConnell’s declaration that he is moving on after last week’s defeat does not
spell the political death of the ACA repeal effort. Remember, Speaker Ryan said the same thing
after the AHCA fell apart repeatedly in the House. The repeal effort will only die politically
when an important Republican sponsors legislation that seeks to repair the
ACA. Even a feeble proposal will compare
very favorably with proposals to liquidate the ACA to pay for tax cuts. As such, the appearance of such a proposal
with Republican sponsorship will make bills like AHCA impossible to defend.
Practically, the
ACA’s operation will continue to suffer as long as Congress and the
Administration raise doubts about its survival and management. Some insurers have attributed much of their
announced rate increases to uncertainty coming from Washington. Insurers are unlikely to invest the up-front
costs to enter unserved or underserved markets if they believe they may have
only a year or two to recoup those costs.
And the prospect of delays and difficulties receiving payments can
discourage any business.
A good example is
the President’s oft-repeated threat to cut off reimbursement to insurers for
the ACA’s mandatory cost-sharing subsidies for low-income people. If he follows through on that threat,
insurers will promptly sue for their money in the Court of Federal Claims. And they will surely win because 42 U.S.C. §
18071(c)(1) states:
An issuer of a qualified health
plan making reductions under this subsection shall notify the Secretary of such
reductions and the Secretary shall make periodic and timely payments to the
issuer equal to the value of the reductions.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2517, these judgments would be paid
out of the permanent uncapped appropriation for judgments against the United
States, 31 U.S.C. § 1304. (Thus, even if
the House of Representatives were ultimately to prevail in its lawsuit alleging
that no appropriation supports these payments, the financial outcome would be
unchanged.) But having to go through the
delay and expense of litigation is naturally unattractive to insurers, some of
whom are raising their premiums or limiting their market participation as a
result.
The practical threat
to the ACA will end when Congress, and particularly the Administration, comes
to feel invested in the law’s success.
That may well not occur unless and until some bipartisan legislation
passes to address some of the ACA’s actual shortcomings, allowing the
Administration to claim that it is implementing a new law of its design rather
than that of its predecessor.
Posted 11:17 PM by David Super [link]
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) ![]() Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) ![]() Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) ![]() Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) ![]() Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) ![]() Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) ![]() Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution ![]() Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) ![]() Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) ![]() Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) ![]() Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) ![]() Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic ![]() Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) ![]() David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) ![]() Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |