U.S. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) says he thinks the Supreme Court likely will rule federal Affordable Care Act subsidies are unconstitutional in the 34 states without state insurance exchanges.
The Supreme Court will decide the King vs. Burwell case sometime between now and Monday, June 29.
"They're going to rule for the plain text of the law," Lankford said. "Does the law mean what the law says, or can any Administration on any law in the future reinterpret it based on their preferences?"
Speaking on the floor of the Senate Monday, Oklahoma's junior Republican said about 87,000 low- and moderate-income workers receive an estimated $18 million in federal tax subsidies to help pay for health insurance.
“In Oklahoma this year, the requested rate increase for federal health care is between 11 and 45 percent, depending on the plan and county that you live in,” Lankford said.
The freshman Senator said he wants to see a transition out of subsidies and mandates under the Affordable Care Act if the court rules them unconstitutional.
“Those individuals forced into Obamacare are not the problem,” Lankford said. “We're not angry at those individuals. They're trapped in a mess made around them and they were forced into.”
He also wants the states to be able to choose how they help citizens, and people to be able to choose any health care plan they desire.
“I hear people call this law either Obamacare or the Affordable Care Act,” Lankford said. “Over the last five years, the words ‘patient protection’ seem to disappeared from every part of everyone's vernacular on this and I would only have to say I agree. When did we stop saying to the patient you have no ability to make your own choices?”
KGOU produces journalism in the public interest, essential to an informed electorate. Help support informative, in-depth journalism with a donation online, or contact our Membership department.
