Henry Aaron, David Cutler and Peter Orszag, writing in The New York Times, argue that the courts should reject the challenge to the Obamacare’s subsidies.
“We note that the statute, while vague at points, confirms, when read in its entirety, that tax credits are to be available on all the exchanges, nationwide. The law specifically instructed the secretary of health and human services to create and manage the exchanges for states that chose that option. And when the law was passed, everyone involved in the law’s passage understood that this directive vested federal exchanges with the same mission and authority as state-mandated exchanges.”
“Limiting tax credits to the 14 states that manage their own exchanges (along with the District of Columbia) would destroy this careful architecture … To keep premiums affordable, the law requires nearly everyone to buy insurance, and offers low- and moderate-income people financial help … If both the sick and the healthy buy insurance, premiums can be kept within reason.”
“The record is unambiguous: Congress, in 2010, understood and endorsed the links connecting the sale of insurance, the requirement to carry insurance and the financial aid to make it affordable.”
“If the full District of Columbia Circuit takes up the case, it should reject this sophistry … Whatever one thinks of the Affordable Care Act, it is absurd to argue that its drafters intended to make insurance unaffordable.”