Innovare may be Latin for innovate, but the values at Innovare Health Advocates are traditional: An “Old School” commitment to delivering “Healthcare the Way it Ought to Be.”
The Missouri-based health practice is run by Dr. Charles Willey, a staunch tea party conservative who’s been mentored by former Sen. Jim Talent, one of his patients. “I’ve personally, for a long time, been interested in politics,” he told a radio show in 2010, noting that he’d been leading efforts “to get doctors excited about resisting Obamacare.”
But Willey’s doing more than just resisting the health law these days — he’s become an active player in Halbig et al v. Sebelius, a lawsuit that threatens a key element in the Affordable Care Act: Whether the tax subsidies slated to help many Americans purchase coverage through many insurance exchanges are even legal under the ACA’s language.
(Innovare Health is one of the small businesses that has joined the suit.)
And the stakes are higher than most people realize, according to Michael Greve, a law professor at George Mason University.
“If the statute means what it says, Obamacare’s machinery simply doesn’t apply in half the country,” Greve contends.
“This is for all the marbles.”
Law’s Language a Sticking Point
Conservative scholars say it’s obvious in the text of the Affordable Care Act, right as rain. (Italics added by columnist.)
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Whatever the disadvantages of the new health care law, Obamacare proponents appeared to be on solid ground when they said that it would extend affordable health insurance to millions of Americans.
At the hearing of the health subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Cornell University economics professor Richard Burkhauser showed that in 2014, millions of low-income Americans may be unable to get subsidized health insurance through the new health care exchanges.
It’s true that under Obamacare, firms with more than 49 workers have to offer affordable health insurance coverage to full-time employees or pay a penalty. But the coverage only has to be for an individual policy, not a family policy.
And what most people don’t know is that if a worker receives coverage for a single person from his employer, his family will not be able to get subsidized health insurance coverage under the exchange.
This is because, if one member of a family receives employer-sponsored health insurance, other members of the family cannot receive subsidized coverage under the exchange.
Other family members would have to purchase full-price health insurance, which would be prohibitively expensive for those at low incomes, those who are supposed to be protected.