Anti-Obamacare Attorney Contradicts Himself

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case seeking to void subsidies under the Affordable Care Act for those who get insurance through the federal exchange (like me). The attorney for the plaintiffs, Michael Carvin, told the justices that if those subsidies are voided people will still get their insurance through the exchange so there’s no reason to believe it will lead to some big boost in the number of uninsured:

During oral arguments, Justice Kennedy said that this risk of a death spiral raised a “serious constitutional problem” for Carvin. Under the Supreme Court’s first Obamacare decision, Congress may not coerce states into acting against their will, and Kennedy was concerned forcing states to choose between setting up an exchange or having their individual insurance markets collapse amounted to unconstitutional coercion. Given two different ways of reading a law, Kennedy indicated that he may be obligated to choose the one that doesn’t raise this constitutional concern.

Carvin tried to downplay the risk that consumers would simply stop buying plans in the law’s health exchanges if the tax credits were cut off, claiming that these consumers would still be attracted to exchange plans by the fact that the exchanges offer “one-stop shopping” for people looking to buy insurance. He also claimed that Congress wasn’t worried about the risk of death spirals if the tax credits get cut off. According to Carvin, “there’s not a scintilla of legislative history suggesting that without subsidies, there will be a death spiral.”

Now let’s set the wayback machine for 2012, the last legal challenge to the ACA, when Carvin said the exact opposite:

But Carvin himself sang a very different tune three years ago. Indeed, Wednesday was not the first time he’s stood in the well of the Supreme Courtroom and asked the justices to gut the Affordable Care Act. Carvin was also one of the lead attorneys in NFIB v. Sebelius, the first Supreme Court case attacking the law.

In a brief filed in NFIB, Carvin explained that “[w]ithout the subsidies driving demand within the exchanges, insurance companies would have absolutely no reason to offer their products through exchanges, where they are subject to far greater restrictions.” And, contrary to his more recent suggestion that Congress never envisioned any danger if the tax credits are cut off, Carvin wrote in 2012 that “the insurance exchanges cannot operate as intended by Congress absent those provisions.”

In a subsequent brief, Carvin elaborated that “the federal subsidies are the incentive to participate in the exchanges, and without those subsidies, there will be no mechanism to sustain the exchanges.” He also seemed to contradict his central claim that different states are treated differently depending on whether their exchange is operated by a state or the federal government. The Affordable Care Act, according to the Michael Carvin of 2012, “enables uniform and acceptable federal premium subsidies” (emphasis added).

This whole case is ridiculous. Absolutely no one, advocates or opponents of the ACA, believed when that law passed that it did not intend to provide subsidies to those who get insurance through federal exchanges rather than state ones. In fact, those who opposed the ACA argued that those subsidies would be massively expensive because they went to every eligible person who got insurance under the ACA. Now suddenly they want this strained and out of context reading of the law because it suits their goals.

"Mhm, she endorsed Trumpy and appeared at his rally. She didnt get much for it."

Palin’s Pointless Appeal
"Here's the thing: You're saying the same thing hundreds of other men -- and it's ..."

How to Think Critically About the ..."
"I've got an "individual gesture" for them. One on each hand."

Catholic School to Punish Students for ..."
"It doesn't matter whether you mean it in the colloquial fashion or not. In fact, ..."

How to Think Critically About the ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • barry21

    This ghoulish nitpicking case once again opens the door for the Court to dismantle the ACA.

    I guess the good news is that each time Obamacare survives a challenge, it becomes a little less vulnerable. Maybe.

  • jd142

    Except that’s how lawyers work. They make the argument that helps their client and judges don’t get to call them on switching sides of an argument. And sometimes you can argue two contradictory defenses in the same case. Your window wasn’t broken. Maybe your window was broken, but my client doesn’t own a baseball. Your window was broken by my client’s baseball, but my client was out of down. Your window was broken when my client threw his baseball, but he has a medical condition that caused it.

    I wish I could find what I think is a Rumpole quote from John Mortimer. Something about the full weight crown and country allied in the prosecution of the defendant, who must be given every opportunity to fight back against such power. And only poor old Rumple at his side.

  • D. C. Sessions

    Isn’t it curious that nobody — and I mean not even the Republican talking heads — is even pretending that this case will be decided by anything but what five men think is best for the Republican Party?

    Prediction: since there’s no need to pretend that this is anything but Bush v Gore, Part Two, if they decide for the plaintiffs they’re going to make it another “do not apply the statutory construction of this case to any other” directive.

  • raven

    Obamacare Helped Up to 10 Million Get Insurance, Gallup …

    There is no question the ACA has helped people and saved money for the feds. The uninsured are at record low levels.

    This is another example that the Pro Family Values GOP is a Big Lie.

    They want to cut food stamps for children and health care insurance for the poor and lower middle classes.

    If you look at the GOP plans to replace the ACA, there really aren’t any except some smoke and mirrors.

  • raven

    Life span for uneducated white women now lower than that …

    www. washingtonpost. com/…/life-span-falls-for-uneducated-white-wome…

    Sep 9, 2013 – White women without a high school diploma are dying five years sooner than in 1990…

    1. White women in the rural south and west have falling lfiespans. It’s fallen 5 years in 2.5 decades.

    This is noteworthy because it hasn’t happened in a century.

    2. This is a fundie xian demographic. It’s also a GOP demographic. It is also an ACA demographic, a group targeted by the ACA.

    3. The GOP has been trying very hard to kill off some of their own voters!!! And their own voters are helping them. I guess tribalism is more important than even to keep on living.

  • Modusoperandi

    Absolutely no one, advocates or opponents of the ACA, believed when that law passed that it did not intend to provide subsidies to those who get insurance through federal exchanges rather than state ones.

    It’s unfortunate that we can’t go back and ask the people who wrote the ACA what they intended.