President Trump has announced that on Thursday of next week he will name his pick to replace the late Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court.
It appears that Trump has narrowed his choice to two or three finalists: Continue reading President Trump Sets a High Bar for Governor Sununu
It’s either me or Hillary is not a very effective argument for Donald Trump to use against #NeverTrump. They already know that, yet they believe that Hillary Clinton is the lesser of two evils because Clinton would leave conservatism to fight another today as opposed to co-opted.
Without getting into the argument whether conservatism is better or worse in the long run with a Clinton presidency versus a Trump presidency, let’s agree that Trump has to give #NeverTrump a better reason to hold their noses and vote for him than otherwise you get Hillary
What Trump should do is say that his first act as President will be to nominate Ted Cruz to the Scalia seat. Continue reading The Most Effective Argument That Trump Can Make Against #NeverTrump
The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) hears arguments on Wednesday (March 4) in King v. Burwell, a case that will decide whether it is legal for the Obama administration to allow Obamacare tax credits in States that did not set up state exchanges, but instead opted for federal exchanges. I previously post about the case here, here and here.
From a previous post:
Both the individual mandate and the employer mandate are triggered by the availability of subsidies. In the case of an individual, when the cost of health insurance exceeds eight percent of income he or she cannot be fined (or taxed, if you prefer) for not purchasing health insurance. The employer mandate also is triggered by the availability of subsidies. In States where there are no subsidies, employers cannot be fined for not offering its full-time employees “suitable” insurance.
The actual language of Obamacare authorizes subsidies only for health insurance purchased on an exchange “established by the State under section 1311.” If the Supreme Court says this language means what it says, that’s a big problem for Obamacare because there are only sixteen Obamacare exchanges “established by the State.” The remaining States, including New Hampshire, opted against setting up Obamacare exchanges. Obamacare, in these thirty-four States, is purchased through exchanges established by the federal government. Without subsidies there can be no individual mandate or employer mandate in these thirty-four States, and with no individual mandate or employer mandate in these thirty-four States there can be no Obamacare.
In a previous post, I also wondered about what the New Hampshire Legislature would do in response to a ruling by SCOTUS that Obamacare subsidies are not available in States like New Hampshire:
New Hampshire is neither a federal exchange state nor a state exchange state. It is a partnership state, one of “seven ‘partnership’ states —Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, West Virginia, Delaware and New Hampshire — that regulate health plans and handle consumer outreach while relying on the HealthCare.gov enrollment portal.”
According to the Washington Post, the partnership states:
seem to be the likeliest candidates to establish a state-run marketplace if the Supreme Court rules against the Obama administration.
“They’re already most of the way there,” said Georgetown’s Giovannelli.
So what will Senate President Morse and House Speaker Jasper do if, as expected, the United States Supreme Court rules that Obamacare subsidies are not legal in States (like New Hampshire) that have not established state exchanges?
The New Hampshire Attorney General, on behalf of the State of New Hampshire, has joined a brief supporting the Obama administration. Here’s a link to a post on National Review Online regarding the amicus briefs (55 in all), which will allow you to access the brief joined by Mr. Foster.
I think it is highly likely that Mr. Foster has directly or indirectly been in communication with Speaker Jasper and Senate President Morse about what to do in response to a SCOTUS decision ruling that Obamacare subsidies are only available in States with state exchanges. If such a discussion or discussions have taken place, which I consider likely, then I am sure that the discussion included setting up a state exchange in New Hampshire.
My sense and fear is that Speaker Jasper, who is no small government conservative, would be receptive to such a plan.