Republicans Consider Extending Subsidies, Dismantling Other Parts of ACA

While Republicans continue to look at dismantling President Obama's Affordable Care Act, they are also working on plans to extend subsidies temporarily to the millions of Americans who may lose the financial assistance should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell.

While Republicans continue to look at dismantling President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, they are also working on plans to extend subsidies temporarily to the millions of Americans who may lose the financial assistance should the Supreme Court rule in favor of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell.

A House proposal would repeal taxes on medical devices, kill a Medicare advisory board, and remove consumer protections like coverage under parents’ health insurance for children until the age of 26.

However, the Associate Press reported that both House and Senate Republicans are looking to extend subsidies even if the Supreme Court rules people living in states using HealthCare.gov are ineligible, a move that Timothy S. Jost, law professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, said was possible, but unlikely.

Although Avik Roy, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, said the overall blame sits with the Obama administration, he admits that since Republicans control Congress, if the subsidies are removed for millions of Americans, then Republicans have a responsibility to make it right.

And it looks like Republicans realize letting millions of voting Americans lose their insurance coverage because they no longer have access to financial assistance would not be in their best interest.

The House plan would continue the subsidies for another year, and the Senate GOP plan would continue giving federal aid to people in states using the federally facilitated marketplace for more than 1 year, or until after the 2016 elections, according to the AP. However, the Senate plan, like the House plan, would remove the mandates for individual and employer-provided coverage.

Read more from the Associated Press: http://apne.ws/1L2vX2O

Read more from The Wall Street Journal: http://on.wsj.com/1MOkBh6