The four dissenters in Sebelius v. National Federation of Independent Businesses - finding the "individual mandate" to be beyond Congress's power under the commerce clause would have voided the entire statute - because of the interdependence of its system of mandates and subsidies. they explained:
That system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated. Without the federal subsidies, individuals would lose the main incentive to purchase insurance inside the exchanges, and some insurers may be unwilling to offer insurance inside of exchanges. With fewer buyers and even fewer sellers, the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.
What is known, however, is that severing other provisions from the Individual Mandate and Medicaid Expansion necessarily would impose significant risks and real uncertainties on insurance companies, their customers, all other major actors in the system, and the government treasury. And what also is known is this: Unnecessary risks and avoidable uncertainties are hostile to economic progress and fiscal stability and thus to the safety and welfare of the Nation and the Nation’s freedom. If those risks and uncertainties are to be imposed, it must not be by the Judiciary. (NFIB v. Sebelius, dissent, p. 57)Now, having voted to grant cert in King v. Burwell they have another chance to bring down the house that Congress built. If plaintiffs win their challenge it will be left to Congress to deal with the consequences as millions are left uninsured or faced with markedly increased premiums for health insurance. Andrew sprung explores the options. See more HERE
'via Blog this'